\ 


THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  ILLINOIS 

LIBRARY 


370 

K6  .. 
H0.9-I3 


The  person  charging  this  material  is  re- 
sponsible for  its  return  to  the  library  from 
which  it  was  withdrawn  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books 
are  reasons  for  disciplinary  action  and  may 
result  in  dismissal  from  the  University. 

UNIVERSITY    OF     ILLINOIS     LIBRARY    AT     URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


rJUL  2  8  1578 
APR    9«W| 


m\ 


vm 


OCT  0  1  H82 
SEP  271 


bC£ 


OCT  2  5  »» 
0CT23»98!i 

MAY* 


L161  —  O-1096 


BULLETIN  NO.  12 


BUREAU  OF  EDUCATIONAL  RESEARCH 
COLLEGE  OF  EDUCATION 


THE  USE  OF  INTELLIGENCE  TESTS  AS  A 

BASIS  OF  SCHOOL  ORGANIZATION 

AND  INSTRUCTION 


by 


Charles  W.  Odell 

Associate,  Bureau  of  Educational  Research 


PRICE   SO  CENTS 


PUBLISHED  BY  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS,  URBANA 

1922 


3  *7  C 


:Miu^ 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Preface 5 

I.     The  Plan  and  Conduct  of  the  Experiment 7 

II.     Conditions  at  the  Beginning  of  the  Experiment 20 

III.  The  Efficiency  of  the  Two  Groups  of  Schools  as  Meas- 

ured by  the  Rates  of  Progress  of  the  Pupils 27 

IV.  The  Efficiency  of  the  Two  Groups  of  Schools  as  Meas- 

ured by  the  Achievements  of  the  Pupils 41 

V.     A    Study   of   the    Pupils    Who   Remained    in    School 

Throughout  the  Course  of  the  Experiment 56 

VI.    A  Special  Study  of  the  Brighter  and  Duller  Pupils 60 

VII.     Results  and  Conclusions 64 

Appendix  A.     A  Comparison  of  the  Pupils  Entering  and  Leav- 
ing   School    During   the    Experiment   with    the 

Total  Number  of  Pupils 69 

Appendix  B.     The  Reliability  and  Correlation  of  the  Tests  Used 

in  this   Experiment 72 

Appendix  C.    The  Omnibus  Test 78 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2012  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


http://www.archive.org/details/useofintelligenc12odel 


PREFACE 

How  to  use  most  effectively  the  information  yielded  by  general 
intelligence  tests  is  one  of  the  most  important  questions  before  the 
educational  world  at  the  present  time.  Many  of  our  leading  educa- 
tional thinkers  are  urging  that  the  children  in  our  elementary  schools 
be  grouped  into  grades  on  the  basis  of  their  mental  ages  and  divided 
into  sections  within  the  grade  on  the  basis  of  intelligence  quotients. 
Other  educators  maintain  that  this  should  not  be  done.  In  this 
monograph  Dr.  C.  W.  Odell  presents  the  results  of  an  investigation 
extending  over  nearly  two  years  in  which  he  has  studied  with  unusual 
care  certain  of  the  questions  involved  in  the  proposal  that  we  reor- 
ganize our  schools  on  the  basis  of  the  results  yielded  by  general 
intelligence  tests.  Because  the  questions  studied  are  highly  impor- 
tant it  is  felt  that  a  somewhat  detailed  report  is  justified.  In  order 
to  assist  the  reader  in  understanding  the  experiment  the  organization 
of  the  experimental  schools  has  been  described  in  detail. 

This  investigation  was  undertaken  at  the  invitation  of  Superin- 
tendent Peter  A.  Mortenson  of  Chicago.  Its  execution  was  made 
possible  by  the  cooperation  of  Assistant  Superintendent  A.  B.  Wight 
and  of  certain  principals  and  teachers  in  the  Chicago  public  schools. 
To  all  who  have  cooperated  in  the  course  of  the  investigation  the 
Bureau  of  Educational  Research  desires  to  acknowledge  its  indebt- 
edness. 

Walter  S.  Monroe,  Director. 
November  10,  1922. 


THE  USE  OF  INTELLIGENCE  TESTS  AS  A  BASIS  OF 
SCHOOL  ORGANIZATION  AND  INSTRUCTION 

CHAPTER  I 
THE  PLAN  AND  CONDUCT  OF  THE  EXPERIMENT 

The  Problem.  The  experiment  described  in  this  bulletin  was 
carried  on  in  eight  elementary  schools  in  the  city  of  Chicago.  It 
was  an  attempt  to  answer  the  following  question:  What  is  the  effect 
upon  the  efficiency  of  elementary  schools  of  promoting  and  classify- 
ing pupils  chiefly  upon  their  mental  ages  and  intelligence  quotients 
as  determined  by  group  intelligence  tests  rather  than  according  to 
the  traditional  method?  It  is  recognized  that  this  is  really  a  double 
problem  involving  the  question  of  a  flexible  system  of  promotion 
and  classification  upon  any  basis  as  compared  with  a  non-flexible 
system,  and  also  the  question  of  using  the  results  of  group  intelligence 
tests  rather  than  some  other  basis  for  promotion  and  classification. 
The  justification  for  combining  these  two  questions  is  that  the  use 
of  the  results  from  group  intelligence  tests  for  the  purposes  men- 
tioned above  necessarily  involves  a  flexible  system  and  hence  the 
two  questions  may  be  considered  as  one  from  the  standpoint  of^ 
practical  school  administration. 

Definition  of  terms  used  in  statement  of  problem.  The 
"efficiency"  of  a  school  is  the  ratio  of  its  output  to  the  investment,  or 
invertmenT.  The  output  or  return  upon  the  investment  is  measured 
in  terms  of  the  achievements  of  the  pupils  and  their  rates  of  progress . 
through  the  school  system.  The  investment,  as  the  term  is  used 
above,  includes  not  only  what  might  strictly  be  called  investment 
but  also  the  factors  which  affect  the  manner  in  which  the  investment 
proper  is  used.  The  "promoting"  of  pupils  refers  to  their  advance- 
ment from  one  half-grade  to  another.  The  "classifying"  of  pupils 
refers  to  their  placement  in  the  fast,  average  and  slow  sections  into 
which  each  half-grade  in  the  experimental  schools  was  divided. 
The  word  "chiefly"  is  used  in  the  statement  of  the  problem  because 
the  information  derived  from  group  intelligence  tests  was   supple- 

[7] 


merited  by  other  data.  The  "traditional  method"  refers  to  the 
method  of  placement  used  in  the  group  of  control  schools.  Accord- 
ing to  this  method,  promotion  is  determined  by  the  pupil's  final 
mark,  which  is  usually  a  composite  of  the  mark  that  he  receives 
upon  the  final  examination  and  that  given  by  the  teacher  for  his 
work  during  the  term.  In  some  cases  the  promotion  indicated  by 
the  pupil's  final  mark  is  modified  by  the  principal's  opinion  of  his 
work  or  ability  or  by  such  considerations  as  chronological  age, 
length  of  time  already  spent  in  the  grade,  number  of  pupils  in  the 
room,  etc.  This  is  the  method  which  has  been  and  still  is  the  pre- 
vailing practice  in  the  elementary  schools  of  this  country. 

Scope  of  study.  This  study  was  confined  to  elementary 
schools  having  sixteen1  or  more  teachers,  which  were  organized  in  six- 
teen half-grades  and  in  which  pupils  were  promoted  semi-annually. 
These  schools  were  divided  into  an  experimental  and  a  control 
group  of  four  each  by  Assistant  Superintendent  A.  B.  Wight.  In 
making  this  selection,  Mr.  Wight  endeavored  to  choose  two  groups 
of  schools2  in  which  the  investment  factors  should  be  approximately 
equal  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment.3  Except  in  the  plan  of 
organization  of  the  experimental  schools,  nothing  was  done  to  cause 
any  change. 

This  investigation  was  rather  strictly  limited  to  the  study  of 
the  effect  upon  the  "efficiency"  of  certain  elementary  schools  of  pro- 
moting and  classifying  pupils  chiefly  according  to  the  data  derived 
from  the  use  of  group  tests  of  intelligence.  There  was  no  consid- 
eration of  the  desirability  of  discovering  and  segregating  for  in- 
structional purposes  pupils  of  varying  degrees  of  ability,  except 
from  the  standpoint  of  their  rates  of  progress  and  achievements  in 
school.  Neither  was  there  any  assumption  that  the  plan  used, 
which  provided  that  pupils  of  different  degrees  of  ability  should 
complete  the  same  course  of  study  at  different  rates  of  progress, 


JIn  one  of  the  control  schools  there  were  only  fourteen  teachers  in  charge  of 
pupils  who  actually  participated  in  the  project. 

^he  experimental  schools  were  the  Armour,  Franklin,  Holden  and  Moseley.  In 
the  control  group  were  the  Alcott,  Greene,  Mark  Sheridan  and  Webster. 

3A  more  complete  comparison  of  the  investment  factors  in  the  two  groups  of 
schools  may  be  found  in  the  dissertation  of  the  same  title  and  by  the  same  writer  as 
this  bulletin.     This  dissertation  is  on  file  in  the  library  of  the  University  of  Illinois. 

[8] 


was  superior  to  a  plan  providing  that  the  different  groups  of  pupils 
should  cover  different  courses  of  study. 

In  this  experiment  the  measurement  of  the  achievements  of 
the  pupils  was,  with  certain  minor  exceptions,  limited  to  arithmetic 
and  reading.  As  these  are  two  of  the  most  fundamental  subjects 
studied  in  the  elementary  school,  they  were  considered  a  fairly 
good  measure  of  total  achievement. 

The  general  plan  of  the  experiment.  The  experiment  be- 
gan in  the  autumn  of  1920  and  continued  until  the  summer  of  1922. 
As  Table  I  shows,  both  intelligence  and  subject-matter  tests  were 
administered  to  the  pupils  of  both  groups  of  schools  once  each 
semester  except  that  at  the  last  testing  only  subject-matter  tests 
were  used.  Also  certain  other  data  that  seemed  pertinent  to  the 
investigation  were  collected  at  each  time  of  testing.  After  the  first 
testing  period  the  pupils  of  the  experimental  schools  were  promoted 
and  classified  upon  the  basis  of  the  test  results  and  the  other  data 
which  had  been  obtained.  After  each  of  the  later  testing  periods 
such  adjustments  were  made  as  seemed  advisable.  No  direct  use 
was  made  of  the  test  results  or  other  data  in  the  control  schools. 
There  was  some  opportunity  for  the  teachers  of  this  group  of 
schools  to  make  a  more  or  less  indirect  use  of  the  test  results  but 
they  did  not  do  so  to  a  degree  sufficient  to  affect  the  results  of  the 
experiment.  By  thus  measuring  the  abilities  and  achievements  of 
the  pupils  of  the  two  groups  of  schools  near  the  beginning  and  end 
of  each  semester  the  resulting  data  afforded  a  basis  for  comparing 
the  effect  of  promoting  and  classifying  pupils  chiefly  upon  the  re- 
sults obtained  from  the  use  of  group  tests  of  intelligence  with  that 
of  promoting  pupils  according  to  the  traditional  method. 

The  first  tests  were  given  in  November,  1920,  and  the  results 
used  in  promoting  and  classifying  the  pupils  for  the  second  semes- 
ter of  1920-21.  The  next  testing  occurred  in  May,  1921,  and  fur- 
nished the  basis  for  the  placement  of  the  pupils  for  the  following 
September.  All  new  entrants  were  tested  in  September  and  assigned 
to  their  grades  and  sections  as  soon  thereafter  as  possible.  A  gen- 
eral testing  occurred  again  in  December  and  was  followed  by  the 
placement  of  the  pupils  for  the  second  semester  of  1921-22.  The 
final  testing  was  in  May,  1922.    In  addition  to  these  general  testing 

[9] 


periods,  small  groups  of  absentees  and  new  entrants  were  tested 
from  time  to  time  as  seemed  best. 

The  tests  were  in  all  cases  given  by  the  regular  teachers  who 
had  been  prepared  for  this  work  by  a  careful  program  of  meetings 
with  discussion.  The  teachers  were  also  given  very  detailed  direc- 
tions. Rather  extensive  visiting  by  the  writer  while  the  tests  were 
being  administered  showed  that  this  program  of  preparation  secured 
fairly  uniform  and  correct  procedure.  Part  of  the  scoring  of  the 
tests  was  done  by  the  teachers  and  part  by  clerks  in  Assistant 
Superintendent  Wight's  office.  The  scoring  was  also  checked  suffi- 
ciently by  the  writer  to  warrant  the  belief  that  it  was  fairly  accurate. 
Most  of  the  errors  which  were  found  were  so  small  that  they  had 
no  effect  upon  the  placement  of  pupils.  In  the  tabulation  of  test 
and  other  data  the  positive  and  negative  errors  balanced  each  other 
so  as  to  leave  no  sensible  inaccuracy  in  the  medians  and  other 
measures  computed. 

The  data  collected.  Table  I  shows  the  intelligence  and 
achievement  tests  used  at  each  date  of  testing.  The  scores  made 
upon  these  tests  were  translated  into  mental4  or  achievement5  ages, 
as  the  case  might  be,  and  then  further  into  intelligence6  and  achieve- 
ment7 quotients.     The  mental  ages  and  intelligence  quotients  used 


4Mental  age  is  a  term  used  to  express  the  amount  of  intelligence  possessed  by  an 
individual.  The  average  score  made  upon  an  intelligence  test  by  a  large  number  of 
unselected  children  of  any  one  given  chronological  age  is  said  to  be  equal  to  a  mental 
age  of  the  given  number  of  years.  Thus,  if  on  a  given  test  the  average  score  of  six- 
year-olds  is  25  points  and  that  of  seven-year-olds  is  30  points,  a  score  of  25  points  may 
be  transmuted  into  a  mental  age  of  six  years  and  one  of  30  points  into  one  of  seven 
years.     It  is  abbreviated  M.A. 

Achievement  age  is  used  to  express  the  amount  achieved  by  an  individual  on 
a  subject-matter  test.  The  average  score  made  by  the  children  of  a  single  mental  age 
is  taken  to  equal  an  achievement  age  of  the  same  number  of  years.  Thus,  if  the  aver- 
age score  of  children  of  the  mental  age  of  ten  years  is  56  points,  that  score  may  be 
changed  into  an  achievement  age — abbreviated  A.A. — of  ten  years. 

6The  intelligence  quotient  is  the  ratio  of  the  mental  age  to  the  chronological  age, 
or  M.A.  divided  by  C.A.  It  is  conventionally  carried  to  two  places  and  written  without 
the  decimal  point.  Thus  a  child  who  has  a  mental  age  of  ten  years  and  is  eight  years 
old  has  an  intelligence  quotient  of  10  divided  by  8,  or  125.     It  is  abbreviated  I.Q. 

7The  achievement  quotient — abbreviated  A.Q. — is  the  ratio  of  the  achievement 
age  to  the  mental  age,  or  A.A.  divided  by  M.A.  It  is  written  similarly  to  the  I.Q. 
Thus  a  child  whose  achievement  age  is  nine  years  and  whose  mental  age  is  ten  years 
has  an  achievement  quotient  of  9  divided  by  10,  or  90. 

[10] 


TABLE  I.    THE  INTELLIGENCE  AND  ACHIEVEMENT  TESTS  USED 
IN  THIS  EXPERIMENT 


Date 
of 

Testing 

Grades 

Intelligence 
Tests 

Grades 

Achievement 
Tests 

Nov. 
1920 

IB-IIIB 

Indiana  University  Primer  Scale 
(Pressey  Primer) 

IA 

Indiana  University  First  Grade 
Reading     Vocabulary     Test, 
Form  A 

IB-IIIB 

Dearborn  Group  Tests  of  In- 
telligence 

IIB-IIIB 

Indiana  University  Scale  of  At- 
tainment No.  1,  Form  A 

IIIA-VIIIA 

National     Intelligence    Tests, 
Scale  A,  Form  I 

IIIA-VIB 
VIA-VIIIA 

Monroe's    Standardized    Silent 
Reading  Tests 
Form  I,  Test  1 
Form  I,  Test  2 

IIIA-VIIIA 

Illinois     General     Intelligence 
Scale,  Form  I 

IIIA-VIB 
VIA-VIIIA 

Monroe's  General  Survey  Scale 
in  Arithmetic 
Form  I,  Scale  1 
Form  I,  Scale  2 

May 
1921 

IB-IIIB 
IIIA-VIIIA 

Indiana  University  Primer  Scale 

Illinois     General     Intelligence 
Scale,  Form  II 

The  same  tests  were  used  as  in 
November,  1920,  except  that 
Form  B  of  the  two  Indiana 
Tests    and    Form    II    of   the 
Monroe  Tests  were  used. 

Sept. 
1921 

IB 

IA-IIIB 
IIIA-VIIIA 

Kingsbury  Primary  Group  In- 
telligence Scale,  Form  A 

IndianaUniversity  Primer  Scale 

Illinois     General     Intelligence 
Scale,  Form  II 

The  same  tests  were  used  as  in 
May,  1921 

Dec. 

1921 

IB-IIIB 
IIIA-VIIIA 

Myers  Mental  Measure 

Illinois     General     Intelligence 
Scale,  Form  I 

The  same  tests  were  used  as  in 
November,  1920,  except  that 
Form  III  of  the  Monroe  Tests 
was  used. 

May 
1922 

None  used. 

VIB-VIIIA 

The  same  tests  were  used  as  in 
November,  1920,  except  that 
Form  B  of  the  Indiana  Vo- 
cabulary  Test   and    Revised 
Form  A  of  the  Scale  of  At- 
tainment No.  1  were  used. 

Omnibus  Test* 

•See  Appendix  C 

at  the  first  time  of  testing  were  based  upon  the  average  of  the  two 
mental  tests  given  at  that  time. 

The  other  items  of  information  called  for  by  the  individual 
record  cards  used  in  this  project  were  as  follows:  name,  building, 
date  of  birth,  sex,  date  of  testing,  school  grade,  chronological  age, 
teacher's  estimate,  average  school  mark,  attendance,  and  health  mark. 

The  teacher's  estimate  was  an  opinion  as  to  the  general  capacity 
of  the  pupil  regardless  of  whether  this  capacity  was  actually  dis- 
played in  regular  school  work  or  not.    This  estimate  was  expressed 


[11] 


in  terms  of  the  following  five  marks  and  the  teachers  were  instructed 
to  make  their  distributions  accord  fairly  closely  with  that  given 
below: 

S   or   5==superior —    5  to  10  percent 
E  or  4=excellent —       20        percent 
G  or  3=good       — 40  to  50  percent 
F  or  2=fair         —       20        percent 
P  or   l=poor       —    5  to  10  percent 
The  average  school  mark  was  the  average  of  the  pupil's  marks 
upon  the  seven  most  important  subjects  of  the  course  of  study.     It 
was  based  upon  the  grades  on  the  monthly  reports  issued  during 
the   current    semester    previous    to   the    date    of   testing    and    was 
expressed  in  terms  of  the  same  five  marks  that  were  used  for  the 
teachers'  estimates. 

Attendance  was  given  as  the  percent  of  school  days  from  the 
beginning  of  the  semester  to  the  date  of  testing  during  which  the 
pupil  was  present.  The  health  mark  was  the  teacher's  opinion  of 
the  general  health  of  the  pupil  and  was  expressed  in  terms  of  the 
same  five  marks  that  were  used  for  teachers'  estimates  and  average 
school  marks. 

At  the  time  of  the  first  testing,  the  published  norms  and  data 
for  the  transmutation  of  point  scores  upon  the  tests  used  into  mental 
and  achievement  ages  were  in  most  cases  based  on  a  number  of 
pupils  not  much  larger,  or  even  actually  smaller,  than  the  number 
taking  the  tests  in  this  experiment.  Hence  it  was  decided  that  in 
the  case  of  most  of  the  tests  used,  the  norms  and  tables  for  trans- 
mutation should  be  based  upon  the  data  obtained  in  this  project.8 
The  exceptions  to  this  decision  were  the  Illinois  Examination,  includ- 
ing the  Illinois  General  Intelligence  Scale  and  Monroe's  Arithmetic 
and  Reading  Tests,  and  the  Myers  Mental  Measure.  These  ex- 
ceptions were  made  because  in  the  case  of  the  Illinois  Examination 
scores  from  about  fifty  thousand  pupils  were  available,9  and  in 
that  of  the  Myers  Mental  Measure  scores  from  about  fifteen 
thousand  pupils.10 


8See  complete  dissertation  for  these  transmutation  tables  and  their  derivation. 

9Monroe,  W.  S.    A  Report  of  the  Use  of  the  Illinois  Examination,  Form  1,  with 
49,500  Pupils.     Insert  of  School  and  Home  Education,  March,  1921.     8p. 

10Myers,  C.  E.  and  G.  C.     Measuring  Minds.     New  York;  Newson,   1921,  p. 
23-4. 

[12] 


Principles  of  promotion  and  classification  used  at  the  first 
placement  of  the  pupils.  It  was  necessary  to  lay  down  certain 
principles  which  should  be  followed  in  the  placement  of  the  pupils, 
with  the  understanding  that  there  would  be  need  for  exceptions 
in  the  cases  of  certain  individuals.  The  inadvisability  of  following 
set  rules  too  closely  was  due  to  several  facts.  Such  procedure  would 
result  in  entirely  too  great  a  change  in  the  placement  of  some  pupils. 
Moreover,  the  data  secured  from  the  tests  and  from  other  sources 
could  not  be  relied  upon  as  being  absolutely  accurate,  and  in  some 
cases  were  so  conflicting  that  disagreements  between  any  detailed 
principles  laid  down  were  sure  to  occur.  In  view  of  these  facts  it 
must  be  understood  that  the  principles  enumerated  below  were  not 
adhered  to  absolutely  and  that  there  were  exceptions  of  many 
sorts  that  it  is  impracticable  to  list.  The  principles  formulated  for 
the  first  placement  of  pupils,  which  was  for  February,  1921,  are 
given  below. 

I.  The  use  of  the  data  derived  from  the  intelligence  tests. 

1.  The  chief  bases  of  placement  were  the  mental  ages  and 
intelligence  quotients.  The  mental  ages  were  used  to 
determine  the  half-grades  in  which  the  pupils  should  be 
placed,  and  the  intelligence  quotients  to  determine  the 
sections,  subject  to  such  modifications  as  may  be  given 
in  II. 

2.  In  general,  the  mental  age  norm  for  each  half-grade  was 
the  median  mental  age  of  this  half-grade  group  for  the 
experimental  schools.  If  the  median  mental  age  of  a 
particular  half-grade  group  in  any  one  school  was  dis- 
tinctly above  or  below  the  median  of  the  four  schools, 
a  rough  average  of  the  two  medians  was  used.  This 
was  done  because  it  was  considered  desirable  to  make 
some  progress  toward  reducing  the  range  of  ability 
within  a  given  half-grade  group  for  the  experimental 
schools,  but  not  to  do  so  without  regard  to  the  ability 
actually  found  in  the  half-grades  of  the  several  schools 
as  they  were  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment.  Rather 
wide  mental  age  limits  were  used  for  each  half-grade 
group,  with  the  expectation  that  as  the  experiment  pro- 
gressed they  would  be  narrowed. 

[13] 


3.  In  general,  demotion  was  recommended  only  when  a  pupil's 
mental  age  was  at  least  two  years  below  the  median  of 
the  grade  in  which  he  was  found,  and  extra  promotion 
only  when  it  was  at  least  several  months  higher  than  the 
median  of  the  grade  in  which  extra  promotion  would 
place  him.  In  no  case  was  a  pupil  recommended  for 
skipping  more  than  two  semesters'  work  nor  for  being 
demoted  more  than  one. 

4.  Pupils  whose  intelligence  quotients  were  above  110  were 
usually  placed  in  the  fast  sections,  those  with  I.  Q.'s  be- 
low 85  in  the  slow  sections  and  the  remainder11  regularly 
composed  the  average  sections.  However,  in  many  cases 
pupils'  mental  ages  were  several  months  above  the 
medians  of  the  half-grades  in  which  normal  promotion 
would  place  them,  while  their  I.  Q.'s  were  below  85.  In 
such  cases  they  were  usually  given  normal  promotion  to 
the  average  section  of  the  next  half-grade.  Similar  ex- 
ceptions were  made  in  connection  with  other  ranges  of 
mental  ages  and  intelligence  quotients. 

5.  In  some  cases  where  the  mental  ages  and  intelligence  quo- 
tients were  rather  low,  it  appeared  probable  that  the 
pupils  had  either  misunderstood  directions  upon  one  of 
the  two  intelligence  tests  or,  had  not,  through  some  other 
cause,  done  themselves  justice  upon  one  of  them.  In 
such  cases  their  scores  on  the  other  test  were  given  more 
than  half  weight  in  determining  their  placement. 

II.  The  use  of  the  other  data  obtained. 

1.  Most  of  the  other  items  recorded  upon  the  individual 
record  cards  were  given  consideration.  Low  teachers' 
estimates  and  average  school  marks  rarely  pre- 
vented promotion  in  cases  where  the  mental  ages  seemed 
to  warrant  it.    In  doubtful  cases  the  question  of  whether 


"Inasmuch  as  the  intelligence  quotients  obtained  in  this  project  were  derived 
from  group  intelligence  tests  they  had  a  somewhat  greater  spread  than  those  derived 
from  individual  tests.  Therefore  the  percent  of  pupils  with  I.Q.'s  from  85  to  110  was 
somewhat  less  than  that  usually  found  between  90  and  110  when  individual  tests  are 
used. 

[14] 


a  single  or  a  double  promotion  should  be  given  was, 
however,  frequently  decided  by  the  teachers'  estimates 
and  average  school  marks. 

2.  On  the  other  hand,  even  though  their  mental  ages  were 
low  enough  to  merit  demotion,  very  few  pupils  were 
failed  whose  teachers'  estimates  and  average  school 
marks  were  "good"  or  better,  and  not  very  many  were 
failed  if  either  one  of  the  two  was  this  high. 

3.  In  making  use  of  the  teachers'  estimates  of  capacity 
and  the  average  school  marks  it  was  found  that  those 
of  some  teachers  ran  much  higher  than  those  of  others 
in  cases  where  the  mental  and  achievement  ages  of  the 
two  groups  of  pupils  showed  little  difference.  That  is, 
a  teacher's  estimate  or  school  mark  of  "fair,"  for  in- 
stance, given  by  one  teacher  might  be  fully  equal  to 
one  of  "good"  given  by  another.  In  making  use  of 
these  two  items  an  allowance  was  made  for  this  fact. 

4.  In  cases  of  marked  disagreement  between  the  evidence 
afforded  by  the  test  data  and  that  given  by  the  teachers' 
estimates  and  school  marks,  the  achievement  test  scores 
were  frequently  the  deciding  factor  in  placement. 

5.  In  doubtful  cases  the  teachers'  estimates  of  health  some- 
times determined  placement,  but  were  not  a  major 
factor. 

III.  Pupils  not  classified. 

1.  Since  all  promoted  VIIIB  and  VIIIA  pupils  would 
leave  the  schools  concerned  before  the  close  of  the  ex- 
periment, no  recommendations  were  made  in  the  case 
of  any  pupils  of  these  grades. 

2.  Pupils  in  open-air  and  ungraded  rooms  were  recom- 
mended for  promotion  and  classification  according  to 
the  same  principles  used  for  the  other  pupils,  but  it  was 
not  expected  that  they  would  actually  be  placed  in  exact 
agreement  with  the  recommendations. 

An  illustration  of  the  application  of  these  principles  of 
promotion  and  classification.  In  order  to  illustrate  the  actual 
application  of  these  principles,  the  following  sample  taken  from  the 

[15] 


TABLE  II.    SAMPLE  OF  THE  PROMOTION  LISTS  MADE  OUT  FOR  THE 
BEGINNING  OF  THE  SECOND  SEMESTER  OF  1920-21 


Pupil 
Number 

M.A. 

I.Q. 

A.A. 

T.E.* 

School 

Mark 

Health 

Mark 

Placement 
of  Pupil 

1 

6.6 

73 

8-8 

1 

1.8 

3 

IIIA  slow 

2 

7.7 

66 

7-10 

2 

1.7 

3 

IVB  slow 

3 

11.3 

110 

10-8 

4 

3.8 

3 

VB  average 

4 

8.0 

85 

9-6 

2 

2.7 

4 

IVB  fast 

5 

11.3 

100 

11-10 

3 

3.0 

4 

VB  average 

6 

9.1 

106 

9-8 

3 

3.5 

3 

IVA  average 

7 

9.2 

95 

8-8 

3 

3.1 

3 

IVA  average 

8 

10.2 

105 

9-8 

3 

3.0 

3 

IVA  average 

9 

10.6 

78 

11-10 

3 

3.0 

4 

IVA  slow 

10 

8.8 

71 

10-0 

2 

2.0 

1 

IVB  slow 

11 

4.7 

40 

7-4 

1 

1.0 

3 

IIIA  slow 

12 

10.0 

72 

8-10 

2 

2.0 

3 

IVA  slow 

13 

12.3 

109 

11-6 

3 

3.0 

3 

VB  fast 

14 

10.4 

91 

11-2 

3 

3.0 

4 

IVA  average 

15 

10.4 

80 

8-0 

3 

2.8 

2 

IVA  slow 

16 

8.7 

106 

9-0 

2 

2.7 

4 

IVA  average 

17 

10.2 

69 

13-0 

3 

3.0 

4 

VB  average 

18 

9.2 

106 

8-6 

3 

3.2 

3 

IVA  average 

19 

8.6 

85 

8-4 

2 

1.5 

1 

IVB  slow 

20 

11.2 

100 

11-10 

4 

4.0 

4 

VB  average 

♦Teacher's  Estimate. 


lists  actually  made  out  is  given  and  discussed.  These  lists  were 
later  submitted  to  the  principals  and  teachers,  as  has  been  men- 
tioned previously,  and  any  changes  that  seemed  best  were  made. 

Since  the  sample  in  Table  II  is  a  portion  of  the  list  for  the 
pupils  who  were  in  the  IVB  grade  during  the  first  semester  of 
1920-21,  the  median  mental  and  achievement  ages12  for  the  half- 
grade  groups  into  which  IVB  pupils  were  likely  to  be  placed  are 
given  below. 

Grade  IIIA  IVB  IVA  VB 

MentalAge  8.1  9.6  9.8  10.8 

Achievement  Age         7-4  9-1  9-2  10-6 

The  mental  ages  of  Nos.  1  and  11  were  so  low  that  it  was 
evident  they  should  be  demoted.  This  was  corroborated  by  the 
low  teachers'  estimates  and  average  school  marks  given  them.  Their 
I.  Q.'s  clearly  indicated  that  they  belonged  in  the  slow  section. 
Nos.  2,  10  and  19  had  mental  ages  considerably  below  the  IVB 
median  and  I.  Q.'s  of  85  or  below.  As  their  teachers'  estimates 
and  school  marks  were  also  fairly  low  they  were  kept  in  their  grade 


12See  Table  III. 


[16] 


and  placed  in  the  slow  section.  No.  12  had  a  mental  age  above 
the  IVB  median,  but  an  I.  Q.  of  only  72,  so  he  was  recom- 
mended for  the  IVA  slow  section.  Although  No.  4's  mental 
age  and  I.  Q.  were  low  enough  to  indicate  that  he  belonged 
in  the  IVB  slow  section  his  fairly  good  achievement  age  and  his 
school  mark  of  2.7  resulted  in  his  being  placed  in  the  fast  section 
of  that  grade.  This  was  done  to  prevent  him  from  having  to  repeat 
work  during  the  whole  of  the  next  semester  and  with  the  expecta- 
tion that  he  would  soon  drop  back  into  an  average  or  slow  section. 
The  mental  ages  of  Nos.  9  and  15  seemed  to  entitle  them  to  extra 
promotion  but  as  their  teachers'  estimates  and  school  marks  were 
only  about  average  they  received  merely  normal  promotion  into 
the  IVA  grade.  Because  of  their  low  I.  Q.'s  they  were  placed  in 
the  slow  section.  In  the  case  of  the  six  pupils  placed  in  the  average 
section  of  IVA  there  was  little  doubt  as  to  where  they  belonged 
except  that  No.  16  had  a  mental  age  almost  a  year  below  the  IVA 
median.  His  rather  high  I.  Q.  and  average  school  mark  led  to  the 
decision  not  to  prevent  his  advancement.  Nos.  8  and  14  might  have 
been  considered  for  extra  promotion  had  their  teachers'  estimates 
and  school  marks  been  higher.  Nos.  3  and  20  were  clearly  entitled 
to  extra  promotion  on  the  basis  of  all  the  data  and  No.  5  was  only 
slightly  less  deserving.  The  I.Q.  of  the  first  would  have  caused 
his  placement  in  the  fast  section  but  it  happened  there  were  not 
enough  pupils  in  the  school  of  similar  ability  to  justify  the  forma- 
tion of  a  fast  section  in  grade  VB.  Therefore  all  three  were  placed 
in  the  average  section  of  that  grade.  No.  17  was  also  given  extra 
promotion.  In  his  case  a  chronological  age  of  almost  16  years  and 
a  high  score  on  the  achievement  tests  were  potent  clauses.  For  the 
same  reason  he  was  placed  in  the  average  rather  than  the  slow 
section,  although  his  I.  Q.  was  only  69.  No.  13  would  probably 
have  been  given  two  semesters  of  extra  promotion  instead  of  one 
except  for  the  fact  that  his  teacher's  estimate  and  school  mark 
were  only  3.  As  it  was  he  was  given  one  extra  promotion  and 
placed  in  the  fast  section  of  the  grade. 

Supplementary  principles  of  promotion  and  classification 
used  at  the  second  and  third  periods  of  placement  of  the 
pupils.  At  the  second  and  third  periods  of  placement — that  is, 
for  September,  1921,  and  February,  1922, — a  majority  of  the  pupils 

[17] 


placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  semester  of  1920-21  received 
normal  promotion  into  the  next  half-grade  and  remained  in  the 
corresponding  section.  Unless  the  new  data  clearly  indicated  that 
the  pupil  had  been  placed  improperly  in  February,  1921,  this  course 
was  followed.  Certain  additional  principles  were  adopted  to  care 
for  those  pupils  who  seemed  to  have  been  improperly  placed.  These 
principles  were  as  follows: 

1.  In  the  cases  of  a  number  of  the  pupils  given  extra  promo- 
tion at  the  beginning  of  the  previous  semester,  their  school 
marks  and  achievement  ages  following  this  promotion  did 
not  appear  to  justify  it.  If,  however,  their  mental  ages  as 
shown  by  the  later  testing  were  high  enough  to  justify  their 
retaining  the  extra  promotion  given  and  also  receiving  nor- 
mal promotion  at  the  later  date,  such  promotion  was  usually 
given.  This  was  done  on  the  assumption  that  after  skipping 
the  work  of  one  or  more  semesters  it  might  require  more 
than  one  semester  for  them  to  "find  themselves." 

2.  Pupils  previously  promoted  or  placed  in  fast  sections  despite 
their  low  school  marks  were  failed  if  their  school  marks  still 
continued  to  be  unsatisfactory.13 

3.  Many  pupils  who  had  received  only  a  part  of  the  extra  pro- 
motion that  they  seemed  to  deserve  in  February,  192 1,14 
were  given  further  extra  promotion,  if  their  later  scores  justi- 
fied so  doing. 

4.  In  cases  where  the  test  scores  of  pupils  varied  greatly  from 
those  made  at  the  previous  testing  period  or  periods,  and 
the  other  evidence  did  not  agree  with  one  score  more  than 
the  other,  the  scores  were  roughly  averaged  to  provide  the 
basis  for  placement. 

The  final  placement  of  the  pupils.  The  writer  made  out 
his  recommendations  for  placement,  basing  them  upon  the  princi- 
ples listed  above,  some  two  or  three  weeks  before  the  end  of  the 
semester.  The  lists  were  then  submitted  to  the  principals  and 
teachers   concerned    for   their   consideration,    and   finally    put   into 


13Most  of  these  seemed  to  be  cases  of  laziness  and  lack  of  study. 
14These  pupils  had  received  only  a  part  of  their  extra  promotion  in  order  to  lessen 
the  amount  of  work  skipped  at  one  time  and  thus  make  their  advance  easier. 

[18] 


effect.  In  two  of  the  four  schools  the  recommendations  were  dis- 
cussed individually,  but  in  the  other  two  this  was  not  done,  as  the 
principals  of  those  schools  wished  to  make  as  complete  a  change 
as  possible  from  the  traditional  method  of  procedure.  The  changes 
made  as  a  result  of  this  consideration  amounted  to  about  one  per- 
cent of  the  total  number  of  recommendations  made.  These  changes 
were  often  due  to  the  fact  that  a  longer  acquaintance  with  certain 
pupils  caused  the  teachers  to  wish  to  revise  the  estimates  of  capacity 
or  school  marks  which  had  been  reported  some  time  previously. 
Sometimes,  however,  the  changes  made  represented  a  yielding  on 
the  part  of  the  writer  of  his  judgment,  based  largely  upon  the  test 
results,  to  that  of  the  principal  or  teacher,  which  was  based  upon 
the  actual  school  work  of  the  pupils  and  upon  personal  contact 
with  them.  In  a  few  cases  a  change  was  made  in  order  to  place  the 
pupil  under  a  certain  teacher  so  that  he  would  be  separated  from  a 
group  of  classmates. 

In  planning  this  whole  experiment  and  in  formulating  and  using 
the  principles  of  promotion  and  classification  those  in  charge  of  the 
experiment  were  guided  by  the  desire  to  do  a  practicable  piece  of 
work.  That  is  to  say,  they  wished  to  use  a  procedure  which  the 
average  school  administrator  or  supervisor  would  be  willing  and 
able  to  make  use  of  in  his  own  school.  It  was  partly  because  of 
this  desire  that  more  thoroughgoing  changes  were  not  made  in  the 
placement  of  the  pupils,  especially  after  the  first  period  of  testing. 
It  is  true  that  some  public  school  superintendents  have  carried  out 
considerably  more  radical  plans  of  reclassification  than  the  one 
used  in  this  experiment  but  it  was  believed  that  a  plan  that  might 
be  followed  by  a  more  conservative  educator  would  be  more  worth 
while. 


[19] 


CHAPTER  II 
CONDITIONS  AT  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  EXPERIMENT 

Chronological  age-grade  placement  in  the  two  groups  of 
schools.  The  chronological  age-grade  situation  in  November,  1920, 
showed  that  the  retardation  in  the  experimental  schools  was  some- 
what greater  than  that  in  the  control  schools.  The  median  age  of  the 
pupils  of  the  experimental  schools  averaged,  grade  for  grade,  two- 
tenths  of  a  year  more  than  that  for  the  other  group.  In  only  two 
of  the  half-grades  was  it  lower.  The  percents  of  pupils  accelerated, 
normally  placed,  and  retarded  were  9,  18  and  73,  respectively,  in 
the  experimental  schools  as  compared  with  10,  21  and  69  in  the 
control  schools.  These  figures  are  based  upon  the  Chicago  stand- 
ard of  normal  progress,  which  is  that  a  pupil  should  be  from  six  to 
six  and  one-half  years  of  age  in  grade  IB,  six  and  one-half  to  seven 
in  grade  IA  and  so  on  up.  The  average  amount  of  retardation 
per  pupil1  was  1.14  years  for  the  experimental  schools  and  .96  year 
for  the  control  schools.  Assuming  that  pupils  had  entered  the  two 
groups  of  schools  at  the  same  average  age,  which  the  writer  believes 
was  the  case,  it  is  evident  that  the  pupils  in  the  control  schools  at 
the  beginning  of  the  experiment  had  made  somewhat  more  rapid 
progress  than  had  those  in  the  experimental  schools. 

Mental  age  and  school  placement  in  the  experimental  and 
control  schools.  As  may  be  seen  from  Table  III,  the  median 
mental  ages  in  all  except  three  of  the  half-grades  were  higher  in  the 
control  than  in  the  experimental  schools.  The  average  difference 
was  slightly  over  one-half  year  of  mental  age.  This  difference  was 
found  in  spite  of  the  fact  just  mentioned  above  that  the  pupils  of 
the  control  schools  were  grade  by  grade  about  two-tenths  of  a  year 
younger  than  those  of  the  other  group. 

^he  average  amount  of  retardation  was  computed  as  follows:  The  number  of 
pupils  accelerated  one-half  year  was  multiplied  by  one-half,  the  number  accelerated 
one  year  by  one,  and  so  on.  The  same  process  was  carried  out  for  those  retarded  and 
the  sum  found  for  each  group  of  pupils.  As  the  total  number  of  years  of  retard- 
ation was  greater  than  the  total  of  acceleration,  the  latter  was  subtracted  to  give  the 
net  total  of  retardation.     This  was  divided  by  the  total  number  of  pupils. 

[20] 


TABLE  III.    GRADE  MEDIAN  MENTAL  AND  ACHIEVEMENT  AGES, 

INTELLIGENCE  AND  ACHIEVEMENT  QUOTIENTS  OF  THE 

EXPERIMENTAL  AND  CONTROL  SCHOOLS,  NOVEMBER,  1920 


Grade 

Mental  Ages 

Intelligence 
Quotients 

Achievement 
Ages 

Achievement 
Quotients 

Exp. 

Cont. 

Exp. 

Cont. 

Exp. 

Cont. 

Exp. 

Cont. 

IB 

6.0 

6.4 

88 

98 

IA 

7.5 

7.7 

100 

105 

7-3 

7-8 

97 

103 

IIB 

7.7 

8.7 

95 

110 

6-9 

7-8 

89 

87 

IIA 

8.2 

9.1 

92 

107 

8-5 

9-0 

104 

102 

IIIB 

9.0 

8.6 

100 

96 

10-1 

9-10 

113 

113 

IIIA 

8.1* 

8.3* 

77* 

84* 

7-4* 

7-10* 

110* 

110* 

IVB 

9.6 

10.0 

92 

102 

9-1 

9-0 

110 

102 

IVA 

9.8 

10.4 

92 

100 

9-2 

9-6 

104 

105 

VB 

10.8 

10.7 

93 

98 

10-6 

10-7 

106 

108 

VA 

10.0 

11.2 

85 

100 

10-1 

11-4 

112 

106 

VIB 

11.8 

11.8 

97 

96 

10-9 

11-8 

100 

105 

VIA 

12.6 

13.2 

101 

103 

11-3 

12-1 

105 

104 

VIIB 

12.5 

14.4 

99 

112 

11-6 

13-0 

105 

100 

VIIA 

13.2 

14.0 

102 

106 

11-11 

13-2 

107 

109 

VIIIB 

14.2 

14.8 

104 

110 

12-2 

14-4 

99 

109 

VIIIA 

15.4 

15.8 

111 

114 

13-7 

14-7 

99 

105 

All 

9.1 

9.7 

94 

103 

10-0 

10-8 

104 

103 

*The  low  M.  A.'s  and  I.  Q.'s  found  in  grade  IIIA  were  doubtless  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
Illinois  General  Intelligence  Scale  requires  a  degree  of  reading  ability  somewhat  above  that  possessed  by 
most  IIIA  pupils. 

**In  grades  IIIA  to  VIIIA  a  composite  achievement  age  was  obtained  by  averaging  the  achievement 
ages  upon  Monroe's  arithmetic  scale  and  in  comprehension  and  rate  upon  his  reading  test.  In  obtaining 
this  average  each  of  the  three  was  given  equal  weight.  The  same  procedure  was  followed  in  the  case  of 
the  achievement  quotients. 

The  inter-quartile  ranges  of  the  various  grades  were  also  com- 
puted. These  showed  an  average  range  of  two  and  one-tenth  years 
for  the  experimental  schools  and  two  and  two-tenths  years  for  the 
control  schools.  Thus  it  appears  that  the  grade  groups  in  the  ex- 
perimental schools  were  slightly  more  homogeneous  than  those  in 
the  control  schools.  Similarly,  a  slight  advantage  was  shown  by  the 
coefficients  of  correlation  of  mental  age  and  grade  placement.  These 
were  .84±.012  for  the  experimental  schools  and  .82  ±.01  for  the 
control  schools. 

The  intelligence  quotients  of  the  two  groups  of  schools. 
Probably  the  best  basis  of  comparing  the  mentality  of  the  pupils 
of  the  two  groups  of  schools  is  that  of  their  intelligence  quotients. 
Table  III  shows  the  medians  for  the  two  groups  of  schools.  In  all 
grades  except  IIIB  and  VIB  the  median  I.  Q.'s  of  the  experimental 


2  For  convenience  all  probable  errors  smaller  than  .01  are  given  as  .01 

[21] 


schools  were  lower  than  those  of  the  control  schools.  The  average 
difference  was  nine  points,  the  medians  for  all  grades  combined 
being  94  and  103.  This  of  course  agrees  with  the  fact  just  noted 
that  the  mental  ages  of  the  pupils  of  the  experimental  schools  were 
lower,  although  their  chronological  ages  were  higher,  than  those  of 
the  other  group. 

The  extent  to  which  the  data  derived  from  the  tests  afforded 
a  true  comparison  of  the  quality  of  the  pupil  material  of  the  two 
groups  of  schools  depends  upon  the  reliability  of  the  tests  used  and 
the  similarity  of  testing  conditions  in  the  two  groups  of  schools. 
As  is  shown  in  Appendix  B,  the  reliability  of  the  intelligence  tests 
was  only  fairly  high,  but  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  the  degree 
of  reliability  was  different  in  the  two  groups  of  schools.  Moreover, 
as  has  been  stated  in  Chapter  I,  the  writer's  rather  extensive  visiting 
while  the  tests  were  being  given  and  his  examination  of  the  test 
booklets  after  they  had  been  scored  afforded  fairly  reliable  grounds 
for  believing  that  there  were  no  essential  differences  in  the  admin- 
istration of  the  tests  in  the  experimental  and  in  the  control  schools. 

The  use  of  the  control  schools  as  a  check  group  upon  the 
experimental  schools.  If  we  assume  that  the  difference  in  the 
amount  and  degree  of  intelligence  found  by  the  use  of  the  intelli- 
gence tests  was  reliable,  the  question  remains  as  to  whether  this 
difference  was  so  great  that  the  control  schools  could  not  be  used 
as  a  valid  check  upon  the  experimental  schools.  A  definite  answer 
to  this  question  cannot  be  given.  Such  data  as  are  available  con- 
cerning the  mentality  of  pupils  of  different  school  systems  appear 
to  show  that  an  average  difference  of  about  seven  months  of  mental 
age  or  nine  points  I.  Q.  is  not  unusual.  Probably  the  most  exten- 
sive data  available  upon  this  point  are  those  obtained  from  the  use 
of  the  Illinois  General  Intelligence  Scale.3  This  scale  was  given  to 
the  pupils  of  ten  cities  and  nine  counties  in  the  autumn  of  1920. 
It  was  found  that  the  differences  between  the  median  mental  ages 
of  the  various  grades  of  the  single  cities  and  counties  concerned 
and  the  general  medians  for  the  corresponding  grades  were  four 
months  or  more  in  50  percent  of  the  cases.  The  largest  differ- 
ence was  one  year  and  three  months.     In  terms  of  the  I.  Q.  50 

3Monroe,  W.  S.     A  Report  of  the  Use  of  the  Illinois  Examination,  Form  1,  with 
49,500  Pupils.     Insert  of  School  and  Home  Education,  March,  1921.     8p. 

[22] 


percent  of  the  differences  exceeded  four  points,  the  greatest  being 
nineteen  points.  Differences  as  large  as  the  average  difference  be- 
tween the  two  groups  of  schools  in  this  experiment  were  found  in 
about  one-sixth  of  the  cases.  Moreover,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  differences  between  the  individual  members  of  a  group  and 
the  group  median  are,  on  the  average,  much  less  than  the  differences 
between  the  individual  members  of  the  group.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  differences  in  this  experiment  were  based  upon  the  average 
scores  from  two  tests  and  therefore  would  probably  tend  to  be 
smaller  than  those  based  upon  a  single  score.  This  latter  factor 
would  not  more  than  balance  the  one  mentioned  in  the  previous 
sentence,  however,  and  probably  would  not  even  do  that.  There- 
fore the  writer  feels  justified  in  the  opinion  that  the  difference  in 
mentality  found  to  exist  between  the  two  groups  of  schools  was 
not  so  great  but  that  the  question  referred  to  above  can  be  answered 
affirmatively,  provided  that  this  difference  was  measured  and  taken 
account  of  in  interpreting  the  results  of  the  experiment. 

The  achievements  of  the  two  groups  of  schools.  Table  III 
also  contains  the  median  achievement  ages  for  the  various  grades. 
It  shows  that  the  control  schools  were  superior  in  all  of  the  half- 
grades  except  IIIB  and  IVB.  This  average  superiority  was  about 
eight  months  of  achievement  age,  which  is  enough  to  indicate  a 
decided  superiority  in  pupil  achievement  on  the  part  of  the  control 
schools. 

The  achievement  quotients,  however,  are  really  more  signifi- 
cant measures  than  are  the  achievement  ages.  It  is  evident 
from  Table  III  that  on  the  whole  the  relation  of  achievement  to 
capacity,  in  so  far  as  the  tests  used  measured  this  relation,  was 
practically  the  same  in  the  two  groups  of  schools.  This  would  be 
inferred  from  a  study  of  the  mental  and  achievement  ages.  Such  a 
comparison  shows  that  the  superiority  of  the  control  schools  in 
achievement  was  just  about  the  same  as  their  superiority  in  intelli- 
gence. Thus  from  this  standpoint  the  two  groups  of  schools  were 
capitalizing  the  capacities  of  their  pupils  almost  equally  in  so  far 
as  the  achievements  measured  were  concerned. 

The  correlation  of  achievement  with  intelligence  in  the 
two  groups  of  schools.  It  is  a  belief  of  many  educators  that  the 
achievements  of  pupils  should  be  as  closelv  related  to  their  capaci- 

[23] 


ties  as  possible  and  that  the  degree  to  which  this  relation  holds  is  a 
measure  of  the  success  of  the  school  in  adapting  its  work  to  the 
individual  pupils.  The  achievement  quotient  measures  this  from 
one  standpoint,  but  it  may  also  be  measured  by  computing  the 
correlation  of  achievement  with  intelligence.  For  all  grades  com- 
bined the  coefficients  of  correlation  between  absolute  achievement 
and  intelligence  scores  was  .68 ±.01  for  the  experimental  schools 
and  .60±.01  for  the  control  schools.  That  is  to  say,  the  experi- 
mental schools  were  securing  achievement  more  nearly  in  propor- 
tion to  pupil  capacity  than  were  the  control  schools. 

Another  measure  of  the  relation  of  achievement  to  intelligence 
may  be  obtained  by  computing  the  median  achievement  quotients 
for  pupils  of  different  levels  of  intelligence.  This  measure  is  based 
upon  the  assumption  that  the  school  should  secure  from  all  pupils 
the  best  work  of  which  they  are  capable,  and  if  it  can  not  do  this 
it  should  approach  the  standard  as  nearly  for  pupils  of  one  level  of 
intelligence  as  for  those  of  another. 

Table  IV  presents  the  median  achievement  quotients  for  the 
pupils  of  different  levels  of  intelligence  in  the  two  groups  of  schools. 
A  study  of  this  table  reveals  the  fact  that  in  both  groups  of  schools 
the  inferior  pupils  were  achieving  more  in  relation  to  their  capacity 
than  were  the  superior  pupils,  but  that  this  tendency  was  somewhat 

TABLE  IV.    MEDIAN  ACHIEVEMENT  QUOTIENTS  OF  THE  PUPILS 
OF  DIFFERENT  LEVELS  OF  INTELLIGENCE,  NOVEMBER,  1920 


Intelligence  Quotient* 

Achievement  Quotients 

Experimental 

Control 

150-59 

104 

98 

140- 

95 

95 

130- 

102 

98 

120- 

102 

102 

110- 

101 

101 

100- 

102 

102 

90- 

104 

104 

80- 

103 

105 

70- 

107 

110 

60- 

113 

114 

50- 

109 

125 

All 

105 

104 

♦Only  those  levels  of  intelligence  were  included  that  had  a  sufficient  number  of  cases  to  give  fairly 
reliable  medians. 


[24] 


less  marked  in  the  experimental  schools.  Further  evidence  to  the 
same  effect  may  be  obtained  from  a  comparison  of  the  coefficients 
of  correlation  of  the  achievement  and  intelligence  quotients.  These 
were  —  .16±.01  for  the  experimental  schools  and  — .28±.01  for 
the  control  schools. 

Teachers'  estimates  of  capacity,  average  school  marks 
and  estimates  of  health,  in  the  two  groups  of  schools.  The 
pupil  material  of  the  two  groups  of  schools  may  also  be  compared 
by  means  of  the  teachers'  estimates,  average  school  marks  and 
health  estimates.  It  is  true  that  these  measures  are  relatively  sub- 
jective, but  as  there  were  almost  one  hundred  teachers  in  each 
group  of  schools  and  as  there  was  no  apparent  selection  which 
would  make  one  group  of  teachers  more  able  to  judge  pupils  than 
the  other,  these  measures  were  probably  fairly  comparable  for  the 
two  groups  of  schools.  Taking  the  medians  for  all  pupils,  the 
teachers'  estimates  for  the  control  group  were  two-tenths  higher, 
the  average  school  marks  three-tenths  higher,  and  the  estimates  of 
health  two-tenths.  Considering  the  three  items  together,  the  half- 
grade  medians  of  the  control  schools  were  higher  in  about  50 
percent  of  the  cases,  those  of  the  experimental  schools  in  only  about 
25  percent,  and  the  two  were  equal  in  about  25  percent.  The  evi- 
dence afforded  by  these  items  is  of  value  chiefly  because  it  corrob- 
orates that  obtained  from  the  intelligence  and  achievement  test  results. 

Summary.  The  differences  found  to  exist  between  the  experi- 
mental and  the  control  schools  in  November,  1920,  at  the  beginning 
of  the  experiment,  were  on  the  whole  large  enough  not  to  be  neg- 
lected as  due  to  chance  or  as  of  no  consequence,  but  were  not 
large  enough  to  invalidate  the  use  of  the  two  groups  of  schools  in 
this  experiment.  When  contrasted  with  the  control  schools  the 
experimental  schools  exhibited  the  following  differences: 

1.  .18  year  greater   retardation    based    on    chronological   age 
(1.14  years  —  .96  year) 

2.  .6  year  lower  median  mental  age  (9.7  years  —  9.1  years) 

3.  9  points  lower  median  I.  Q.  (103  —  94) 


[25] 


4.  8   months   lower   median   achievement   age   in   reading   and 
arithmetic  (10  years  8  months  —  10  years) 

5.  1   point  higher  achievement  quotient  in  reading  and  arith- 
metic (104  —  103) 

6.  .08    higher    correlation    of    achievement    with    intelligence. 
(.68  —  .60) 

7.  .2  lower  median  teachers'  estimate,  school  mark  and  estimate 
of  health,  averaged  (3.3  —  3.1) 


[26 


CHAPTER  in 

THE  EFFICIENCY  OF  THE  TWO  GROUPS  OF  SCHOOLS  AS 

MEASURED  BY  THE  RATES  OF  PROGRESS 

OF  THE  PUPILS 

In  Chapter  I  "efficiency"  was  defined  as  the  ratio  of  the  output 
to  the  investment.  The  output  to  be  measured  was  limited  to  the 
achievements  of  the  pupils  and  their  rates  of  progress.  As  was 
stated,  the  various  factors  constituting  investment  were  all  approx- 
imately constant  except  that  of  the  mental  abilities  of  the  pupil 
material.  Therefore,  the  "efficiency"  of  the  experimental  and  the 
control  schools  might  be  measured  in  terms  of  the  ratios  of  the 
achievements  of  the  pupils  and  their  rates  of  progress  to  their 
mental  abilities.  This  chapter  presents  the  data  dealing  with  the 
rates  of  progress  of  the  pupils,  and  the  relation  of  these  rates  to 
their  mental  abilities. 

The  promotion  and  classification  of  the  pupils  for  Feb- 
ruary, 1921.  The  information  obtained  from  the  testing  in  the 
four  experimental  schools  in  November,  1920,  formed  the  chief 
basis  for  the  placement  of  pupils  for  the  succeeding  semester,  the 
second  of  1920-21.  This  placement  was  made  by  the  writer,  fol- 
lowing the  principles  of  promotion  and  classification  enumerated 
in  Chapter  I.  The  first  half  of  Table  V  shows  the  percents  of  pupils 
in  each  grade  of  the  experimental  schools  gaining  or  losing  various 
amounts  as  a  result  of  this  placement.  It  is  to  be  interpreted  as 
follows,  using  grade  IIB  as  an  example:  7  percent  of  the  pupils 
in  grade  IIB  during  the  first  semester  of  1920-21  were  demoted 
one  semester,  that  is,  were  placed  in  IA;  26  percent  were 
failed  and  remained  in  IIB;  64  percent  received  regular 
promotion  of  one  semester  into  IIA  and  2  percent  received  an 
extra  promotion  and  thus  entered  IIIB.  It  will  be  seen  that  on 
the  whole  the  placement  of  the  pupils  in  the  experimental  schools 
involved  many  more  demotions  and  failures  than  extra  promotions 
and  that  the  percent  of  the  pupils  given  normal  promotion  was  not 
as  great  as  is  usual  in  school  systems.    Only  58  percent  of  the  pupils 

[27] 


TABLE  V.    PERCENTS  OF  THE  PUPILS  PROMOTED,  FAILED  OR  DE- 
MOTED THE  GIVEN  NUMBER  OF  SEMESTERS  AT  THE  CLOSE  OF 
THE  FIRST  SEMESTER  OF  1920-21 


Experimental  Schools 

Control  Schools 

First 
Semester 

Semesters  Gained  or  Lost 

Semesters  Gained  or  Lost 

Grade 

-1* 

0 

+  1 

+2 

+3 

-1 

0 

+  1 

+2 

+3 

+4 

IB 

48 

49 

3 

1 

31 

68 

I 

.2 

IA 

17 

17 

48 

9 

9 

34 

60 

7 

IIB 

7 

26 

64 

2 

2 

9 

80 

9 

IIA 

1 

19 

70 

10 

.4 

16 

83 

A 

IIIB 

2 

12 

75 

9 

1 

14 

82 

4 

1 

IIIA 

14 

31 

50 

3 

2 

32 

67 

1 

IVB 

4 

19 

57 

13 

8 

10 

82 

7 

IVA 

6 

19 

63 

6 

5 

1 

7 

88 

5 

VB 

4 

16 

53 

24 

3 

16 

79 

5 

VA 

16 

22 

55 

4 

1 

4 

95 

1 

VIB 

10 

28 

43 

15 

4 

11 

87 

2 

VIA 

11 

18 

59 

12 

16 

79 

5 

VIIB 

17 

23 

44 

16 

4 

96 

1 

VIIA 

8 

13 

75 

5 

18 

78 

4 

All 

6 

26 

58 

8 

2 

.3 

17 

79 

4 

.03 

.03 

*  — 1  denotes  one  semester  lost  through  demotion,  O  failure,  +1  normal  promotion,  +2  one  extra 
promotion,  etc. 

received  normal  promotion,  32  percent  less,  and  10  percent  more. 
The  average  amount  of  promotion  per  pupil1  was  .74  semester. 
Probably  the  chief  cause  of  the  excess  of  demotions  and  failures 
and  the  low  average  promotion  rate  was  the  rather  liberal  promo- 
tion policy  which  had  been  pursued  prior  to  the  beginning  of  the 
project.  Many  decidedly  inferior  pupils  were  at  the  beginning  of 
the  experiment  found  to  be  almost  up  with  normal  pupils  of  the 
same  chronological  age,  although  they  were  unable  to  do  satisfac- 
tory work  as  placed.  Moreover,  it  had  not  been  at  all  unusual  to 
reward  superior  ability  by  allowing  grades  to  be  skipped. 

The  second  half  of  Table  V  shows  the  changes  made  in  the 
placement  of  the  pupils  in  the  control  schools  at  this  time.  These 
changes  were  made  by  the  teachers  and  principals  according  to  the 
usual  practice,  which  in  Chapter  I  was  called  the  "traditional 
method."  A  much  larger  percent  of  the  pupils  received  normal 
promotion  than  in  the  experimental  schools,  but  only  about  one- 


xThe  average  amount  of  promotion  per  pupil  was  computed  by  finding  the  total 
number  of  semesters  of  promotion  given,  subtracting  therefrom  the  total  number  of 
semesters  of  demotion  and  dividing  by  the  total  number  of  pupils  concerned. 


[28] 


half  as  many  were  demoted  or  failed  or  given  extra  promotion. 
The  average  amount  of  promotion  per  pupil  was  .87  semester. 

It  is  not  fair,  however,  to  compare  the  promotion  rates  of  the 
two  groups  of  schools  directly  according  to  the  figures  given  above. 
The  general  assumption  as  to  the  promotion  rate  is  that  it  should 
be  one  semester  per  semester  for  pupils  of  normal  mentality  who 
are  properly  classified  and  working  to  their  full  capacity  with  no 
hindering  factors  entering  into  the  situation.  For  pupils  whose 
mentalities  are  above  or  below  normal  and  who  are  working  under 
the  same  conditions  as  those  mentioned  for  normal  pupils  the  theo- 
retical rates  of  progress  are  proportionately  above  or  below  one 
semester  per  semester.  For  example,  a  pupil  with  an  I.  Q.  of  125 
would  be  expected  to  advance  one  and  one-fourth  semesters  per 
semester  and  one  with  an  I.  Q.  of  80,  four-fifths  of  a  semester  per 
semester.  Thus  to  render  the  average  promotion  figures  given  in 
the  preceding  paragraphs  strictly  comparable  each  should  be  divided 
by  the  average  or  median  I.  Q.  of  the  pupils  concerned  in  order  to 
bring  both  to  the  basis  of  what  they  would  be  for  pupils  of  normal 
mentality,  that  is,  pupils  whose  I.  Q.  is  100. 

The  measure  of  progress  obtained  by  dividing  the  actual  average 
rate  of  progress  per  pupil  by  the  median  intelligence  quotient  of 
the  pupils  contributing  to  this  average  will  be  called  the  "progress 
quotient."  It  will  be  used  as  the  true  measure  of  progress  through- 
out this  study.  Making  use  of  this  measure  we  have  as  the  "pro- 
gress quotient"  of  the  experimental  schools  .74  divided  by  .94,  and 
for  the  control  schools  .87  divided  by  1.03.  Thus  the  "progress 
quotients"  at  this  time  were  79  for  the  experimental  schools  and 
84  for  the  control  schools.  The  true  difference  in  the  promotion 
rate  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  is  thus  seen  to  have  been 
only  .05  rather  than  .13  semester.  This  difference  cannot  be  at- 
tributed to  the  operation  of  the  experimental  plan  of  organization 
but  rather  to  conditions  in  the  two  groups  of  schools  previous  to 
the  beginning  of  the  experiment  and  to  the  preparation  necessary 
before  the  project  could  be  begun. 

The  formation  of  the  fast,  average  and  slow  sections.     As 

a  result  of  the  placement  in  February,  1921,  more  pupils  were  placed 
in  the  slow  sections  and  fewer  in  the  fast  sections  than  would 
usually  be  the  case  in  most  school  systems.     This  was  largely  due 

[29] 


to  the  liberal  promotion  policy  that  had  been  pursued  before  the 
experiment  was  begun,  and  to  the  fact  that  the  pupil  material  of 
the  experimental  schools  was  rather  distinctly  inferior — median 
I.  Q.  94,  first  quartile  80,  third  quartile  107.  The  fast  sections 
included  14  percent  of  the  total  number  of  pupils  placed,  the  average 
sections  41  percent,  and  the  slow  sections  45  percent. 

The  promotion  and  classification  of  the  pupils  for 
September,  1921.  It  was  to  be  expected  that  after  the  experi- 
ment was  under  way  a  majority  of  the  pupils  in  the  experimental 
schools  would  make  normal  progress  in  the  sections  to  which  they 
had  been  assigned.  The  extent  to  which  this  expectation  was  ful- 
filled provided  a  measure  of  the  efficiency  of  the  previous  placement. 
The  supplementary  principles  of  promotion  and  classification  given 
in  Chapter  I  suggest  various  reasons  for  the  failure  of  many  pupils 
to  make  such  progress. 

Table  VI,  which  is  similar  to  the  first  part  of  Table  V,  shows 
the  gains  and  losses  resulting  from  the  placement  of  the  pupils  in 
the  experimental  schools  for  September,  1921.  For  example,  in  the 
average  section  of  grade  VIA  5  percent  of  the  pupils  were  placed 
back  in  the  VIA  slow  section  and  thus  lost  one-third  of  a  semester; 
17  percent  placed  in  the  VIIB  slow  section  gained  two-thirds  of  a 
semester;  63  percent  placed  in  the  VIIB  average  section  gained  one 
semester;  11  percent  placed  in  the  VIIB  fast  section  gained  one  and 
one-half  semesters  and  4  percent  placed  in  the  VIIIA  average  section 
gained  two  semesters. 

At  this  time  64  percent  of  the  pupils  of  the  experimental  schools 
were  advanced  to  the  corresponding  section  of  the  next  grade,  but 
as  such  advancement  meant  only  two-thirds  of  a  semester  for  the 
slow  pupils  and  one  and  one-half  semesters  for  the  fast,  there  were 
only  41  percent  of  the  pupils  who  gained  just  one  semester.  In 
addition  to  the  64  percent  mentioned,  26  percent  were  placed  in 
the  next  grade  but  in  a  different  section,  so  that  in  all  90  percent 
of  the  pupils  of  the  experimental  schools  were  advanced  to  the  next 
grade.  The  average  progress  earned  by  the  pupils  in  the  slow 
sections  was  .65  semester,  that  earned  by  those  in  the  average 
sections  was  .94  semester,  and  that  by  the  members  of  the  fast 
sections  1.38  semesters.  For  all  the  pupils  the  average  was  .88 
semester.    Dividing  by  the  median  I.  Q.'s  obtained  from  the  Novem- 

[30] 


TABLE  VI.     PERCENTS  OF  THE  PUPILS  OF  THE  EXPERIMENTAL 
SCHOOLS  GAINING  OR  LOSING  THE  GIVEN  NUMBER  OF  SEMES- 
TERS DURING  THE  SECOND  SEMESTER  OF  1920-21 


Grade 

Section 

Semesters  Gained  or  Lost 

-IX* 

-1     -X 

0 

+M 

+h 

+1 

+1K 

+1H 

+2 

+2K 

IB 

Slow 
Average 

14 

21 

22 

60 

57 

226 

.4 

.4 

IA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

4 
1 

4 
7 

46 
12 

4 

43 
58 
22 

2 

18 
65 

1 
1 

1 
7 

IIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

6 
7 

5 

4 
3 

62 

18 

7 

23 
69 
24 

3 
62 

1 

3 

IIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

5 
2 

2 

1 

70 
7 

25 
73 
20 

10 
76 

1 

2 
4 

IIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

6 

1 

1 

67 

22 

2 

24 

58 
32 

1 
17 
60 

1 

2 

4 

IIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

14 

5 

2 

3 

68 

21 

1 

14 

63 
42 

1 

6 

51 

1 

1 
4 

1 

IVB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

10 
3 

2 

68 

23 

7 

22 
61 
21 

5 
71 

7 

IVA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

2 
1 

1 

7 
5 

6 

60 
12 

23 
59 

1 
13 

4 

5 

VB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

6 
5 

63 
14 

30 
51 

4 

2 
30 
96 

VA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 
1 

15 
6 

80 
17 

3 
52 
16 

1 
24 
84 

VIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

13 

2 

70 
25 

10 
54 
20 

7 
16 
73 

2 
7 

VIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

4 

5 

78 

17 

5 

19 

63 
20 

11 

75 

4 

VIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

2 

1 

76 
12 

20 
79 

2 

8 

100 

VIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

8 

1 

40 
4 

52 
76 
6 

19 

94 

VIIIB 

Slow 
Average 

9 

90 
4 

2 
96 

All      All 

.2 

.1 

4 

4 

1 

36         41 

13 

.1 

1 

1 

\Yi  denotes  a  loss  of  one  and  one-third  semesters,  etc. 


[31] 


ber  tests,  the  "progress  quotients"  were  found  to  be  79,  92  and  118 
for  the  slow,  average  and  fast  sections,  respectively.  For  all  the 
pupils  of  the  experimental  schools  the  quotient  was  93. 

Table  VII  shows  the  same  data  for  the  control  schools  as 
Table  VI  for  the  experimental.  Of  all  the  pupils  in  the  control 
schools  80  percent  were  advanced  just  one  semester.  This  percent 
is  practically  twice  as  large  as  that  of  the  experimental  schools, 
but  is  10  smaller  than  the  percent  of  pupils  of  those  schools  ad- 
vanced to  the  same  section  of  the  next  grade.  Only  6  percent  of 
the  pupils  of  the  control  schools  received  extra  promotion,  as  com- 
pared with  the  15  percent  in  the  experimental  schools,  but  14 
percent  were  failed  or  demoted,  as  compared  with  only  8  percent 
in  the  latter  group.  The  average  progress  in  the  control  group 
was  .92  semester.  Dividing  this  by  1.02,  a  "progress  quotient"  of 
90  was  obtained.  Thus,  although  the  average  progress  of  the  pupils 
of  the  control  schools  was  .04  semester  greater,  their  "progress  quo- 
tient" was  three  points  smaller.  To  make  the  comparison  upon  a  strict- 
ly valid  basis,  however,  the  effect  of  the  pupils  who  left  school  and 
who  entered  school  during  the  semester  must  be  considered.  Making 
the  proper  corrections  for  these  pupils,2  the  average  rate  of  progress 

TABLE  VII.    PERCENTS  OF  THE  PUPILS  OF  THE  CONTROL  SCHOOLS 

GAINING  OR  LOSING  THE  GIVEN  NUMBER  OF  SEMESTERS 

DURING  THE  SECOND  SEMESTER  OF  1920-21 


Semesters  Gained  or  Lost 

Grade 

-2 

-1 

0 

+  1 

+2 

+3 

+4 

+5 

IB 

45 

S3 

2 

IA 

1 

15 

71 

13 

.4 

IIB 

17 

81 

1 

IIA 

1 

10 

88 

1 

IIIB 

12 

87 

.4 

1 

.4 

IIIA 

2 

16 

81 

.4 

IVB 

7 

85 

7 

1 

IVA 

2 

9 

88 

1 

VB 

11 

87 

2 

1 

VA 

1 

4 

83 

12 

VI B 

1 

90 

8 

1 

VIA 

9 

75 

16 

VIIB 

1 

90 

9 

VIIA 

.5 

2 

86 

11 

VIIIB 

4 

96 

All 

.1 

1 

13 

80 

6 

.2 

.1 

.03 

2See  Appendix  A. 


[32] 


of  the  pupils  of  the  experimental  schools  was  .02  semester  less  and 
their  "progress  quotient"  four  points  larger  than  the  corresponding 
figures  for  the  pupils  of  the  control  schools.  In  other  words,  in  so 
far  as  the  progress  of  the  pupils  was  concerned,  the  experimental 
schools  were  more  efficient  during  the  second  semester  of  1920-21 
than  were  the  control  schools.  The  difference  in  the  "progress 
quotient"  was  just  about  large  enough  to  balance  the  difference  at 
the  beginning  of  the  experiment.3  Since  this  was  the  case,  it  cannot 
be  assumed  that  the  increased  efficiency  of  the  experimental  schools 
in  the  matter  of  progress  was  necessarily  due  to  the  plan  of  organi- 
zation used. 

The  relative  size  of  the  fast,  average  and  slow  sections. 
It  was  again  deemed  advisable  to  place  many  more  pupils  in  the 
slow  than  in  the  fast  sections.  The  facts  that  had  made  this  neces- 
sary a  semester  earlier  still  exerted  some  influence  upon  the  situa- 
tion. The  percent  of  the  pupils  placed  in  fast  sections  at  this  time 
was  15,  and  the  remainder  were  equally  divided  between  the 
average  and  the  slow  sections.  Thus  there  was  an  increase  of  one 
percent  in  the  number  of  pupils  placed  in  the  fast  sections  and  also 
of  those  in  the  average  sections  over  the  percents  for  the  previous 
semester. 

The  placement  of  the  new  entrants  received  by  the  experi- 
mental schools  in  September,  1921.  The  new  entrants  into 
the  experimental  schools  in  September,  1921,  were  tentatively  placed 
in  the  average  sections  of  the  grades  indicated  by  their  previous 
school  records,  and  later,  after  being  tested,  they  were  placed  as 
the  test  results  and  the  other  data  indicated.  In  the  placement 
of  pupils  at  this  time  no  reclassification  of  the  IB  pupils  was  at- 
tempted, because  the  results  obtained  from  the  use  of  the  Kingsbury 
Primary  Group  Intelligence  Scale  in  that  grade  were  so  unsatisfac- 
tory that  the  writer  deemed  it  unwise  to  make  use  of  them.  Table 
VIII  shows  that  slightly  over  half  of  the  pupils  were  not  shifted 
at  all,  that  15  percent  gained  by  the  reclassification  and  31  percent 
lost  by  it.  The  average  change  made  amounted  to  a  loss  of  .09 
semester,  or  a  promotion  of  .91  semester  from  the  grades  in  which 
these  pupils  were  the  previous  semester.  As  the  median  I.  Q.  of 
the  new  entrants  was  85,  their  "progress  quotient"  was   107. 

3See  page  29. 

[33] 


TABLE  VIII.    PERCENTS  OF  THE  NEW  ENTRANTS  INTO  THE  EXPERI- 
MENTAL SCHOOLS  GAINING  OR  LOSING  THE  GIVEN  NUMBER 
OF  SEMESTERS  BY  THEIR  RECLASSIFICATION 
IN  SEPTEMBER,  1921 


Tempo- 

Semesters G< 

lined  or  Lost 

rary 
Grade 

-2/3 

-I/3 

-1 

-H 

0 

+/2 

+% 

+  1 

+  I/2 

+  1% 

+2 

+  2^ 

IB* 

IA 

27 

13 

53 

7 

IIB 

10 

2 

14 

52 

11 

2 

10 

IIA 

8 

35 

42 

8 

4 

4 

IIIB 

7 

7 

51       21 

14 

IIIA 

23 

77 

IVB 

10 

2 

17 

58 

6 

6 

2 

IVA 

38 

52 

5 

5 

VB 

7 

25 

53 

2 

14 

VA 

19 

21 

47 

8 

4 

2 

VIB 

9 

14 

59 

9 

5 

5 

VIA 

17 

13 

17 

43 

4 

4 

VIIB 

3 

12 

64 

15 

3 

3 

VIIA 

29 

7 

7 

50 

7 

VIIIB 

12 

31 

15 

42 

VIIIA 

100 

All 

.2 

9 

4 

18 

53 

7 

.2 

6 

1 

.2 

.2 

.2 

*As  is  explained  in  the  text,  the  pupils  in  grade  IB  were  not  reclassified  at  this  time. 

Only  9  percent  of  the  new  entrants  at  this  time  were  placed 
in  the  fast  sections.  The  average  sections  received  63  percent  and 
the  slow  sections  28  percent.  Combining  the  new  entrants  with 
the  pupils  who  had  been  tested  in  the  previous  May  the  percent 
in  the  fast  sections  was  IS,  that  in  the  average  45,  and  that  in  the 
slow  41. 

The  promotion  and  classification  of  the  pupils  for  Feb- 
ruary, 1922.  The  data  obtained  in  December,  1921,  were  used 
to  determine  the  placement  of  the  pupils  for  the  second  semester 
of  the  school  year.  Table  IX,  which  is  similar  to  Table  VI,  gives 
the  percents  of  the  pupils  of  the  experimental  schools  gaining  or 
losing  various  amounts  during  the  first  semester  of  1921-22.  There 
were  48  percent  of  the  pupils  advanced  just  one  semester,  as  com- 
pared with  41  percent  during  the  previous  semester;  35  percent 
made  less  than  one  semester's  progress  and  17  percent  made  more, 
as  compared  with  44  and  15  percent  previously.  The  percent  of  the 
pupils  advanced  to  the  corresponding  section  of  the  next  higher 
grade  was  79,  whereas  only  64  percent  were  so  advanced  a  semester 
previously.     The  percent  placed  in  some  section  of  the  next  grade 


[34] 


TABLE  IX.    PERCENTS  OF  THE  PUPILS  OF  THE  EXPERIMENTAL  SCHOOLS 

GAINING  OR  LOSING  THE  GIVEN  NUMBER  OF  SEMESTERS 

DURING  THE  FIRST  SEMESTER  OF  1921-22 


Grade 

Section 

Semesters  Gained  or  Lost 

-1% 

-1 

-% 

-H 

-H 

0 

+tt 

+H 

+% 

+H 

+  1 

+ltt 

+U4 

+m 

+2 

+2H 

+2H 

IB 

Slow 
Average 

7 
24 

61 
12 

27 
62 

5 

2 

IA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

3 

14 

6 
2 

8 
7 

65 

76 

12 

56 

7 
41 

IIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

2 

12 

4 

9 
4 

3 

58 

1 

86 

16 
2 

95 

i 

2 

4 

1 

IIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

4 

12 

8 
4 

10 

73 

5 

89 

8 

85 

2 

IIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

6 

5 

3 

2 

80 

84 

14 

98 

7 

IIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

1 

6 

7 

2 
8 

3 

82 

83 

10 

97 

IVB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

3 

4 

5 

2 
7 

79 

17 

84 

16 

83 

3 

IVA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

4 

1 

1 

3 

76 

78 

22 

5 

100 

10 

VB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

5 

4 

4 

78 

85 

18 

100 

5 

VA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

6 

3 

2 

92 

85 

7 

1 

98 

4 

1 

VIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

3 

1 

6 

7 

63 

87 

36 

97 

VIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

2 

5 

9 

5 

59 

75 

37 

100 

2 

4 

VIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

3 

4 

87 

94 

10 

100 

' 

VIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

2 

74 

96 

26 

100 

VIIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

4 

2 

7 

83 

80 

100 

8 

17 

VIIIA 

Slow 
Average 

2 

100 

98 

All 

All 

.1 

.1 

1  1   .02 

1 

6 

3 

.2 

23 

.2 

4S 

5 

10 

.02 

2 

.2 

.02 

[35] 


was  almost  the  same  as  before,  being  89.  The  average  progress 
per  pupil  was  .72  semester  for  those  in  the  slow  sections,  .87 
semester  for  those  in  the  average  and  1.49  semesters  for  the  mem- 
bers of  the  fast  sections.  The  respective  "progress  quotients"  were 
84,  84  and  121.  For  all  the  pupils  in  the  experimental  schools  the 
average  progress  was  .90  semester  and  the  "progress  quotient"  91. 
The  corresponding  figures  for  the  second  semester  of  1920-21  were 
.88  semester  and  93,  so  it  is  apparent  that  the  average  progress 
was  slightly  greater  and  the  "progress  quotient"  slightly  less  during 
the  second  semester  of  the  experiment  than  during  the  first. 

Table  X,  which  is  similar  to  Table  VII,  shows  the  gains  and 
losses  of  the  pupils  of  the  control  schools  according  to  their  place- 
ment at  this  time.  A  comparison  of  these  data  with  those  for  the 
experimental  schools  shows  that,  as  before,  a  larger  percent  of  the 
pupils  of  the  control  schools  received  normal  promotion.  The  dif- 
ference, however,  was  not  quite  as  great  as  the  previous  semester, 
the  figures  for  this  time  being  82  and  48  percent  as  compared  with 
80  and  41  percent.  The  percent  of  the  pupils  receiving  extra  pro- 
motion in  the  control  schools  was  only  half  as  large  as  it  had  been 
a  semester  earlier,  whereas  in  the  experimental  schools  the  corre- 

TABLE  X.    PERCENTS  OF  THE  PUPILS  OF  THE  CONTROL  SCHOOLS 

GAINING  OR  LOSING  THE  GIVEN  NUMBER  OF  SEMESTERS 

DURING  THE  FIRST  SEMESTER  OF  1921-22 


Semesters  Gained 

or  Lost 

Grade 

-3 

-2 

-1 

0 

+  1 

+2 

+3 

IB 

33 

64 

2 

.2 

IA 

19 

80 

.5 

IIB 

14 

82 

3 

IIA 

17 

83 

1 

IIIB 

.3 

.3 

6 

91 

3 

IIIA 

20 

80 

IVB 

10 

83 

7 

IVA 

6 

92 

2 

VB 

10 

84 

4 

2 

VA 

1 

6 

91 

3 

VIB 

1 

11 

85 

4 

VIA 

1 

13 

82 

4 

1 

VIIB 

11 

88 

1 

VIIA 

1 

8 

79 

13 

VIIIB 

9 

91 

VIIIA 

1 

2 

9 

89 

All 

.1 

.03 

.1 

14 

82 

3 

.2 

[36] 


sponding  percent  was  slightly  larger.  The  percent  of  failures  and 
demotions  in  each  group  was  practically  the  same  as  before.  The 
average  progress  per  pupil  in  the  control  schools  was  .88  semester 
and  the  "progress  quotient"  was  likewise  88.  Hence  the  average 
progress  was  .02  semester  greater  in  the  case  of  the  experimental 
schools  and  the  "progress  quotient'7  three  points  greater.  Had  it  not 
been  for  the  new  entrants  and  eliminees,  the  difference  in  average 
progress  would  have  been  .01  semester  greater.  Thus  it  can  be 
said  for  the  second  semester  of  the  experiment,  as  for  the  first,  that 
in  so  far  as  the  progress  of  the  pupils  was  concerned,  the  experi- 
mental schools  were  somewhat  more  efficient  than  were  the  control 
schools. 

The  classification  into  fast,  average  and  slow  sections  for 
the  second  semester  of  1921-22.  The  percents  of  the  pupils 
placed  in  the  sections  at  this  time  differed  rather  markedly  from 
those  for  previous  semesters.  The  percent  placed  in  the  fast  sections 
showed  only  a  slight  decrease,  but  that  in  the  slow  sections  de- 
creased about  one-third.  The  percents  were  13  in  the  fast  sections, 
57  in  the  average  and  30  in  the  slow  sections.  These  figures  give 
evidence  that  as  the  experiment  progressed  it  was  possible  to  place 
pupils  more  nearly  as  would  be  expected  from  theoretical  consid- 
erations. 

The  promotion  and  classification  of  the  pupils  for 
September,  1922.  After  the  testing  in  May,  1922,  which  was  the 
last  during  the  experiment,  the  pupils  of  the  experimental  schools 
were  placed  for  the  first  semester  of  1922-23.  Table  XI,  which  is 
similar  to  Tables  VI  and  IX,  shows  the  gains  and  losses  of  the 
pupils  of  the  experimental  schools  during  the  second  semester  of 
1921-22.  There  were  55  percent  of  the  pupils  who  gained  just  one 
semester  as  compared  with  48  percent  during  the  previous  semester, 
28  percent  who  made  less  than  one  semester's  progress  as  compared 
with  35  percent,  and  17  percent  who  made  more,  the  same  as  the 
previous  semester.  Only  58  percent  of  the  pupils  were  advanced 
to  the  corresponding  section  of  the  next  higher  grade  as  compared 
with  79  percent  a  semester  previously.  The  percent  placed  in  some 
section  of  the  next  grade  was  89,  just  the  same  as  it  had  been. 
The  average  progress  per  pupil  was  .62  semester  for  those  in  the 
slow  section,   .98   semester  for  those   in  the   average,   and   1.39  for 

[37] 


TABLE  XI.    PERCENTS  OF  THE  PUPILS  OF  THE  EXPERIMENTAL 

SCHOOLS  GAINING  OR  LOSING  THE  GIVEN  NUMBER  OF 

SEMESTERS  DURING  THE  SECOND  SEMESTER  OF  1921-22 


Grade 

Section 

Semesters  Gained  or  Lost 

-IX 

-1 

-K 

-X 

0 

+x 

+K 

+x 

+1 

+IX 

+IH 

+2 

+2N 

+2K 

IB 

Slow 
Average 

37 
12 

46 
22 

17 
66 

IA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

30 

20 

3 

33 

5 

36 
69 
21 

11 

66 

.3 
5 

IIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

10 

9 

90 

75 
21 

4 

79 

12 

IIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

5 

5 

94 

81 
4 

12 
83 

2 

2 
13 

IIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

19 

12 

81 

81 
16 

7 
65 

18 

IIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

11 

5 

89 

79 

14 
95 

2 

5 

IVB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

6 

5 

94 

77 
19 

18 

78 

4 

IVA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

6 

6 

94 

82 

8 
100 

3 

VB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

3 

2 

96 

93 

4 
100 

1 

VA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

3 

100 

86 

7 

3 

VIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

2 

99 

85 

8 

6 
92 

6 

1 

VIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

5 

6 

100 

83 
18 

6 

82 

VIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

3 

3 

26 

92 
31 

2 
63 

71 

2 
6 

VIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

6 

94 

89 

8 
100 

3 

VIIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

3 

4 

97 

96 

38 

63 

VIIIA 

Slow 
Average 

4 

100 
96 

All 

All 

.03 

.03 

.03 

1 

6 

1 

.2 

20 

55 

14 

1 

2 

.03 

.03 

[38] 


members  of  the  fast  sections.  The  respective  "progress  quotients" 
were  76,  98  and  114.  For  all  pupils  of  the  experimental  schools 
the  average  progress  was  .94  semester  and  the  "progress  quotient" 
97.  These  figures  show  both  greater  actual  progress  and  greater 
progress  relative  to  ability  than  was  made  during  either  of  the 
previous  semesters. 

Table  XII,  which  is  similar  to  Tables  VII  and  X,  shows  the 
gains  and  losses  of  the  pupils  of  the  control  schools  for  this  semester. 
Again  more  pupils  of  the  control  schools  received  normal  promo- 
tion than  was  the  case  in  the  experimental  schools,  the  difference, 
however,  being  smaller  than  it  was  in  either  of  the  previous  semes- 
ters. The  percent  of  the  pupils  receiving  extra  promotion  was 
only  one-third  as  large  as  in  February,  1922,  whereas  in  the 
experimental  schools  it  was  the  same.  The  percent  of  failures  and 
demotions  in  the  control  schools  was  slightly  less  than  in  February, 
the  decrease  being  in  about  the  same  ratio  as  that  in  the  experi- 
mental schools.  The  average  progress  per  pupil  in  the  control 
schools  was  .89  semester  and  the  "progress  quotient"  86.  Thus 
the  average  progress  was  .05  semester  greater  in  the  case  of  the 
experimental  schools  and  the  "progress  quotient"  eleven  points  greater. 

TABLE  XII.    PERCENTS  OF  THE  PUPILS  OF  THE  CONTROL  SCHOOLS 

GAINING  OR  LOSING  THE  GIVEN  NUMBER  OF  SEMESTERS 

DURING  THE  SECOND  SEMESTER  OF  1921-22 


Semesters  Gained  or  Lost 

Grade 

-1 

0 

+  1 

+2 

+3 

IB 

8 

69 

23 

IA 

.4 

18 

81 

1 

IIB 

16 

83 

2 

IIA 

10 

90 

IIIB 

8 

91 

1 

IIIA 

24 

75 

1 

IVB 

8 

90 

2 

IVA 

10 

90 

VB 

13 

86 

1 

1 

VA 

6 

94 

VIB 

8 

92 

VIA 

7 

92 

1 

VIIB 

3 

9 

85 

1 

1 

VIIA 

16 

83 

1 

VIIIB 

17 

83 

VIIIA 

5 

95 

All 

.2 

12 

87 

1 

.1 

[39] 


The  new  entrants  and  eliminees  did  not  affect  these  differences. 

The  classification  into  fast,  average  and  slow  sections 
for  the  first  semester  of  1922-23.  The  percents  of  the 
pupils  placed  in  the  sections  for  September,  1922,  again  differed 
considerably  from  those  for  previous  semesters.  The  percent  in 
the  fast  sections  was  practically  the  same,  14,  but  that  in  the  average 
sections  rose  to  68  and  that  in  the  slow  sections  dropped  to  18.  Thus 
the  tendency  already  noted  for  the  fast  and  slow  sections  to  ap- 
proximate each  other  in  size  was  continued  as  the  experiment 
progressed  longer.  Probably  the  distribution  at  this  time  was  about 
what  it  should  be,  as  there  will  always  be  more  pupils  belonging 
in  slow  sections  because  of  not  realizing  their  highest  possible 
achievement  than  there  will  be  pupils  belonging  in  fast  sections 
because  of  doing  more  than  should  be  expected  of  them. 

Summary.  As  a  result  of  the  placement  of  the  pupils  at  the 
beginning  of  the  experiment  the  "progress  quotient"  for  the  experi- 
mental schools  was,  at  that  time,  five  points  smaller  than  that  for 
the  control  group.  During  the  course  of  the  experiment  this  situa- 
tion was  reversed.  Averaging  the  "progress  quotients"  for  the  three 
semesters,  those  for  the  experimental  group  were  the  larger  by 
about  six  points.  Thus  the  net  result  of  the  experimental  plan  of 
organization  in  so  far  as  progress  was  concerned  was  favorable. 
The  greater  degree  of  efficiency  of  the  experimental  schools  seems 
to  have  been  due  to  the  operation  of  this  plan. 


[40] 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  EFFICIENCY  OF  THE  TWO  GROUPS  OF  SCHOOLS  AS 

MEASURED  BY  THE  ACHIEVEMENTS  OF  THE  PUPILS 

In  Chapter  III,  one  of  the  two  factors  which  were  taken  as 
constituting  output  has  been  discussed.  In  this  chapter  the  other 
factor,  that  of  achievement,  will  be  considered  both  absolutely  and 
in  its  relation  to  capacity.  It  has  been  shown  in  the  preceding 
chapter  that  there  was  an  increase  in  the  "progress  quotient"  of 
the  experimental  schools  as  compared  with  that  of  the  control 
schools.  Therefore  if  a  study  of  the  achievements  of  the  pupils  of 
the  two  groups  of  schools  shows  that  those  of  the  experimental 
schools  were  either  equal  to  or  greater  than  those  of  the  control 
schools,  it  may  be  said  that  the  experimental  schools  were  more 
efficient  than  the  other  group  during  this  experiment. 

The  gains  in  absolute  achievement  during  the  second 
semester  of  1920-21.  Table  XIII  gives  the  median  achievement 
ages  of  the  grades  and  sections  of  the  two  groups  of  schools  at  the 
beginning  and  end  of  the  second  semester  of  1920-21.  A  compari- 
son of  the  first  and  fourth  columns  shows  that  at  the  beginning  of 
this  semester  the  median  achievement  age  of  the  control  schools 
was  four  months  greater  than  that  of  the  experimental  schools, 
while  at  the  end  of  this  semester  the  median  ages  were  the  same. 
In  other  words,  the  gain  in  achievement  age  on  the  part  of  the 
experimental  schools  was  four  months  more  than  that  of  the  control 
schools.  The  cause  of  this  increase  cannot  be  stated  with  certainty. 
There  are  at  least  two  explanations  that  may  account  for  it.  One 
of  these  is  that  it  resulted  from  the  same  causes  which  accounted 
for  a  similar  increase  in  the  mental  ages.  The  increase  in  the 
median  mental  age  of  the  pupils  of  the  experimental  schools  was 
five-tenths  of  a  year  greater  during  this  semester  than  was  that  of 
the  control  schools.  In  the  opinion  of  the  writer  the  most  potent 
cause  of  the  greater  increases  in  both  mental  and  achievement  ages 
on  the  part  of  the  experimental  schools  was  the  fact  that  both  the 
teachers  and  the  pupils  of  those  schools  felt  a  very  high  degree  of 

[41] 


TABLE  XIII.    MEDIAN  GRADE  AND  SECTION  ACHIEVEMENT  AGES 

OF  THE  PUPILS  OF  THE  TWO  GROUPS  OF  SCHOOLS  AT  THE 

BEGINNING  AND  END  OF  THE  SECOND  SEMESTER 

OF  1920-21 


Grade 

Section 

Experimental 

Control 

Beginning 

End 

Gain* 

Beginning 

End 

Gain 

IA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

6-4 
6-8 
5-6 

10-5 
10-4 
10-10 

49 
44 
64 

6-2 

10-0 

46 

IIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

6-4 
6-5 
8-6 

8-8 

9-10 

8^ 

28 
41 
-2 

7-11 

8-0 

1 

IIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

6-7 
7-7 
8-1 

9-5 

9-10 

9-6 

34 
27 
17 

7-10 

9-7 

21 

IIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

8-2 

8-11 

8-8 

10-10 

10-7 

11-1 

32 
20 
29 

9-0 

10-9 

21 

IIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

9-1 
10-1 
9-10 

9-1 
10-1 
9-8 

0 

0 

-2 

9-8 

10-1 

5 

IVB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

8-11 
10-0 
9-11 

10-8 
10-7 
12-6 

21 

7 

31 

9-1 

10-10 

21 

IVA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

9-5 
10-7 

11-7 
14-0 

26 
41 

10-0 

10-0 

0 

VB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

9-8 
10-10 
10-10 

12-1 
13-4 
13-2 

29 
30 
28 

10-7 

12-2 

19 

VA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

10-4 
11-5 
13-0 

11-4 

13-6 
14-7 

12 

25 
19 

11-5 

13-4 

23 

VIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

10-0 

11-10 

13-6 

12-1 

12-10 

15-1 

25 
12 
19 

12-0 

13-8 

20 

VIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

11-11 

12-8 
15-0 

14-5 
15-1 
15-0 

30 

29 

0 

12-1 

13-10 

21 

VIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

12-5 
12-5 
15-t 

15-5 
16-6 
17-0 

36 
49 
20 

14-2 

14-8 

6 

VIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

12-7 
13-6 
16-1 

14-11 
17-8 
18-5 

28 
50 
28 

15-0 

16-1 

13 

VIIIB 

Slow 
Average 

11-11 
14-0 

13-6 
16-7 

19 
31 

15-1 

16-1 

12 

All 

All 

10-0 

11-6 

18 

10-4 

11-6 

14 

*The  gains  are  given  in  terms  of  months. 


[42] 


TABLE  XIV.    MEDIAN  GRADE  AND  SECTION  ACHIEVEMENT  QUO- 
TIENTS OF  THE  TWO  GROUPS  OF  SCHOOLS  AT  THE  BEGINNING 
AND  END  OF  THE  SECOND  SEMESTER  OF  1920-21 


Grade 

Section 

Experimental 

Control 

Beginning 

End 

Gain 

Beginning 

End 

Gain 

IA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

103 

88 
65 

116 
118 
128 

13 
30 
63 

91 

117 

26 

IIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

93 

86 

103 

100 
109 
105 

7 

23 

2 

99 

95 

-4 

IIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

89 
92 
88 

112 
111 
110 

23 
19 
22 

90 

111 

21 

IIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

111 
106 
103 

120 
111 
112 

9 

5 
9 

103 

118 

15 

IIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

114 
114 

108 

104 
115 
104 

-10 

1 

-4 

115 

112 

-3 

IVB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

111 
106 
106 

106 

106 
108 

-5 

-0 

2 

110 

112 

2 

IVA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

107 
106 

110 
118 

3 
12 

103 

103 

0 

VB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

109 
108 
98 

112 
109 
108 

3 

1 

10 

105 

110 

5 

VA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

106 
110 
105 

108 
116 
118 

2 
6 
13 

106 

112 

6 

VIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

102 
104 
110 

110 
108 
106 

8 

4 

-4 

109 

114 

5 

VIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

115 
108 
115 

119 
118 
121 

4 

10 
6 

105 

115 

10 

VIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

108 
105 
105 

120 
122 
117 

12 
17 
12 

103 

108 

5 

VIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

108 
103 
105 

106 
119 
122 

-2 
16 
17 

101 

113 

12 

VIIIB 

Slow 
Average 

99 
93 

104 
113 

5 
20 

105 

111 

6 

All 

All 

106 

112 

6 

104 

112 

8 

interest  in  the  results  of  the  tests  because  they  knew  that  placement 
was  largely  dependent  upon  these  results.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
teachers  and  pupils  of  the  control  schools  knew  that  no  direct  use 
would  be  made  of  the  test  results,  hence  naturally  took  less  interest 


[43] 


in  the  testing.  The  other  explanation  is  that  the  experimental  plan 
of  organization  caused  the  increase.  Inasmuch  as  there  is  generally 
a  fairly  high  correlation  between  the  scores  made  on  intelligence 
tests  and  those  on  subject-matter  tests,  especially  in  the  case  of 
verbal  intelligence  and  reading  tests,  the  writer  believes  that  the 
first  explanation  is  the  true  one  or  at  least  more  nearly  so  than  the 
latter.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  both  had  a  part  in  causing  the  rela- 
tive increase. 

The  achievement  quotients  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the 
second  semester  of  1920-21.  Table  XIV  shows  that  at  the  be- 
ginning of  this  semester  the  median  achievement  quotient  of  the 
experimental  schools  was  two  points  higher  than  that  of  the  control 
schools.  We  have  seen  that  both  the  intelligence  and  the  achieve- 
ment scores  made  at  the  end  of  the  semester  showed  a  greater  in- 
crease in  the  case  of  the  experimental  schools  than  in  that  of  the 
other  group,  but  that  the  increase  in  intelligence  on  the  part  of 
the  experimental  schools  was  slightly  greater  than  that  in  achieve- 
ment. Moreover,  both  groups  showed  greater  increases  in  achieve- 
ment than  in  intelligence.  Therefore  we  expect  to  find,  as  we  do, 
that  the  median  achievement  quotients  of  both  groups  of  schools 
increased  during  this  semester,  and  that  the  increase  in  the  case 
of  the  control  schools  was  slightly  greater.  This  difference  was 
two  points.  Thus  at  the  end  of  the  semester  the  two  medians 
were  the  same.  The  general  import  of  this  evidence  is  that  in  so 
far  as  achievement  was  concerned  there  was  a  slight  relative  in- 
crease in  the  efficiency  of  the  control  schools. 

The  correlation  of  intelligence  and  achievement  at  the 
beginning  and  end  of  the  second  semester  of  1920-21.  Al- 
though the  achievement  quotient  measures  the  relation  of  intelli- 
gence and  achievement  in  one  way,  this  relation  may  also  be  meas- 
ured by  means  of  the  coefficient  of  correlation.  The  following  table 
shows  the  coefficients  that  were  found  at  the  beginning  and  end  of 
the  semester  by  correlating  the  mental  and  achievement  ages  for 
all  grades  combined: 

Experimental  Control 

Beginning      End  Loss  Beginning      End  Loss 

.68  ±.01     .56±.01  .12  .60±.01    .51  ±.01  .09 

It  is  evident  that  in  both  groups  there  was  a  decrease  in  the 

[44] 


correlation  of  achievement  with  intelligence  as  measured  by  the 
tests  used.  This  decrease  was  slightly  greater  in  the  case  of  the 
experimental  schools,  but  the  difference  was  not  great  enough  to 
be  significant.  It  may  be  that  this  decrease  was  due  to  a  lessening 
of  the  degree  to  which  instruction  was  adapted  to  the  capacities 
of  the  pupils.  It  is  likely,  however,  that  much,  if  not  all,  of  the 
decrease  was  caused  by  the  fact  that  the  mental  ages  calculated  at  the 
beginning  of  the  semester  were  based  upon  the  average  scores 
made  on  two  intelligence  tests  and  hence  were  more  reliable  than 
those  obtained  at  the  end  of  the  semester,  which  were  based  upon 
only  one  test  score.  This  lower  degree  of  reliability  would  natur- 
ally tend  to  reduce  the  correlation  between  the  mental  and  the 
achievement  ages. 

The  relation  of  the  intelligence  and  achievement  quo- 
tients at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  second  semester  of  1920- 
21.  The  median  achievement  quotients  of  the  groups  of  different 
levels  of  intelligence  as  determined  by  the  intelligence  quotients 
were  computed  for  the  end  of  the  semester  as  they  had  been  at 
its  beginning.  Table  XV  presents  a  comparison  of  those  found  at 
the  two  periods.  The  achievement  quotients  of  the  different  groups 
at  the  end  of  the  semester  showed  that  in  the  experimental  schools 
instruction  was  adapted  about  equally  well  to  the  pupils  of  different 

TABLE  XV.    MEDIAN  ACHIEVEMENT  QUOTIENTS  OF  THE  PUPILS  OF 

DIFFERENT  LEVELS  OF  INTELLIGENCE  AT  THE  BEGINNING 

AND  END  OF  THE  SECOND  SEMESTER  OF  1920-21 


Achievement  Quotients 

Intelligence 

Experimental 

Control 

Quotient 

Beginning 

End 

Beginning 

End 

150-59 

104 

117 

98 

103 

140- 

95 

122 

95 

113 

130- 

102 

113 

98 

107 

120- 

102 

113 

102 

109 

110- 

101 

112 

101 

109 

100- 

102 

113 

102 

113 

90- 

104 

111 

104 

113 

80- 

103 

113 

105 

114 

70- 

107 

115 

110 

117 

60- 

113 

116 

114 

120 

50- 

109 

128 

125 

120 

All 

105 

112 

104 

I             112 

[45] 


levels  of  intelligence,  whereas  in  the  control  schools  the  previous 
well-marked  tendency  to  adapt  instruction  more  nearly  to  the 
capacities  of  the  inferior  pupils  remained.  As  this  tendency  was 
present  in  both  groups  of  schools  at  the  beginning  of  the  semester 
it  is  evident  that  there  was  a  relative  improvement  in  the  degree 
to  which  the  instruction  in  the  experimental  schools  was  adapted 
to  pupils  of  one  level  of  intelligence  as  well  as  to  those  of  another. 
The  coefficients  of  correlation  of  the  intelligence  and  achieve- 
ment quotients  were  also  found  and  compared  with  those  for  the 
beginning  of  the  semester.  The  following  table  presents  this  com- 
parison: 

Experimental  Control 

Beginning        End  Gain  Beginning       End  Gain 

— .16±.01  —  .12±.G1       .04  —  .28=*=  .01  —  .25=*=  .01        .03 

This  comparison  shows  that  at  the  close  of  the  semester  the  nega- 
tive correlations  between  the  intelligence  and  achievement  quotients 
were  slightly  smaller  in  the  cases  of  both  of  the  groups  of  schools. 
The  difference  in  the  gains  was  so  small  that  it  has  no  significance. 
This  fact  shows  that  the  instruction  given  in  the  control  schools 
was  still  somewhat  less  equally  suited  to  pupils  of  all  levels  of 
intelligence  than  was  that  of  the  experimental  schools.  In  the 
main  this  corroborates  the  evidence  presented  in  the  preceding 
paragraph. 

The  gains  in  absolute  achievement  during  the  first  semes- 
ter of  1921-22.  Table  XVI,  which  contains  data  corresponding 
to  the  third  and  sixth  columns  of  Tables  XIII  and  XIV,  shows 
that  the  increase  in  absolute  achievement  during  this  semester  was 
seven  months  of  achievement  age  in  the  experimental  schools  and 
four  months  in  the  control  schools.  As  during  this  same  semester 
the  median  mental  age  of  the  experimental  schools  did  not  increase 
as  much  as  did  that  of  the  control  schools  it  seems  fair  to  attribute 
the  greater  gain  in  achievement  to  an  increase  in  the  efficiency  of 
the  experimental  schools.  It  was  shown  in  the  preceding  chapter 
that  during  this  same  semester  the  "progress  quotient"  of  this  group 
of  schools  was  greater  than  that  of  the  control  group,  therefore 
this  increase  in  efficiency  in  so  far  as  achievement  is  concerned 
cannot  be  attributed  to  a  slowing  up  of  the  progress  of  the  pupils. 

[46] 


TABLE  XVI.     GRADE  AND  SECTION  GAINS  AND  LOSSES  IN  ACHIEVE- 

MENT  AGES  AND  QUOTIENTS  OF  THE  TWO  GROUPS  OF 

SCHOOLS  FROM  THE  BEGINNING  TO  THE  END 

OF  THE  FIRST  SEMESTER  OF  1921-22 


Grade 

Section 

Achievement  Ages 

Achievement  Quotients 

Experimental 

Control 

Experimental 

Control 

IA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

16 

23 
8 

-2 

12 

7 

-19 

6 

IIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

-20 
-14 
-11 

-18 

-11 
-19 
-13 

-31 

IIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

11 

7 
5 

6 

18 
-2 
10 

-21 

IIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

8 

17 
16 

12 

-1 
-11 

-8 

-32 

IIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

-15 
-17 
-10 

-16 

-11 

-7 
-10 

-12 

IVB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

10 
15 
21 

4 

-4 
-4 
-5 

-9 

IVA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

23 
22 
67 

-7 

1 

1 

12 

-18 

VB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

20 

5 

-2 

17 

-11 
-10 

-25 

-1 

VA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

12 

-6 

6 

18 

-7 

-15 

-9 

2 

VIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

17 

19 

-49 

8 

-8 

-3 

-12 

-8 

VIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

14 

2 
-29 

8 

-13 
-11 

-2 

-5 

VIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

19 

18 
35 

0 

-9 
-10 

2 

-12 

VIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

5 

10 
27 

3 

-13 

-3 
-3 

-5 

VIIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

-19 

-8 
-15 

1 

-15 
-13 

-18 

-9 

VIIIA 

Slow 
Average 

7 
12 

-3 

-7 
3 

-17 

All 

All 

7 

4 

-8 

-13 

[47] 


The  achievement  quotients  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the 
first  semester  of  1921-22.  The  median  achievement  quotients  of 
both  groups  of  schools  were  smaller  at  the  end  of  this  semester 
than  they  were  at  its  beginning.  In  other  words,  the  average  in- 
crease in  the  scores  made  upon  the  intelligence  tests  was  consid- 
erably greater  than  that  in  those  upon  the  achievement  tests.  This 
would  seem  to  point  to  the  fact  that  the  practice  effect  upon  the 
intelligence  tests  was  greater  than  that  upon  the  others.  As  Table 
XVI  shows,  the  decrease  in  the  median  achievement  quotient  of 
the  experimental  schools  was  eight  points,  whereas  that  in  the 
control  schools  was  thirteen  points.  Thus  the  loss  of  the  experi- 
mental schools  was  five  points  less  than  that  of  the  other  group, 
or,  in  other  words,  their  relative  gain  was  that  large.  This  sup- 
ports the  conclusion  reached  above  from  the  study  of  the  mental 
and  achievement  ages,  that  the  efficiency  of  the  experimental  schools 
during  the  semester  was  greater  than  that  of  the  control  schools. 

The  correlation  of  achievement  and  intelligence  at  the 
beginning  and  end  of  the  first  semester  of  1921-22.  The  fol- 
lowing table  compares  the  coefficients  of  correlation  found  at  the 
end  of  the  semester  with  those  at  the  beginning: 

Experimental  Control 

Beginning       End  Loss  Beginning       End  Loss 

.56±.01     .54=t=.01  .02  .51±.01     .51^.01  .00 

Judging  from  these  coefficients,  it  seems  that  there  was  practicallv 
no  change  in  the  relation  of  achievement  to  intelligence  during  this 
semester.  The  slight  decrease  of  .02  on  the  part  of  the  experimental 
schools  was  too  small  to  have  any  significance. 

The  relation  of  the  intelligence  and  achievement  quo- 
tients at  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  first  semester  of 
1921-22.  Table  XVII  shows  the  same  facts  for  this  semester  as  Ta- 
ble XV  for  the  previous  semester.  At  the  end  of  this  semester  there 
was  a  rather  definite  decrease  in  the  achievement  quotient  medians  of 
the  experimental  schools  from  the  duller  to  the  brighter  pupils. 
This  tendency  was  even  more  marked  in  the  control  schools. 
Inasmuch  as  at  the  beginning  of  the  semester  this  tendency  was 
not  noticeable  in  the  experimental  schools  but  was  present  in  the 
control  schools  the  figures  for  the  end  of  the  semester  indicate  that 
relatively  the  condition  which  they  measure  became  worse  in  the 

[48] 


TABLE  XVII.    MEDIAN  ACHIEVEMENT  QUOTIENTS  OF  THE  PUPILS  OF 

DIFFERENT  LEVELS  OF  INTELLIGENCE  AT  THE  BEGINNING 

AND  END  OF  THE  FIRST  SEMESTER  OF  1921-22 


Achievement  Quotients 

Intelligence 
Quotient 

Experimental 

Control 

Beginning 

End 

Beginning 

End 

150-59 

117 

98 

103 

85 

140- 

122 

96 

113 

88 

130- 

113 

102 

107 

95 

120- 

113 

100 

109 

99 

110- 

112 

102 

109 

104 

100- 

113 

106 

113 

105 

90- 

111 

106 

113 

105 

80- 

113 

110 

114 

107 

70- 

115 

111 

117 

113 

60- 

116 

114 

120 

119 

50- 

128 

125 

120 

132 

All 

112 

105 

112 

104 

experimental  schools.  That  is  to  say,  during  this  semester  there 
was  a  relative  loss  in  the  degree  to  which  instruction  was  equally 
well  adapted  to  pupils  of  all  levels  of  intelligence  in  the  experimental 
schools.  The  writer  is  unable  to  suggest  any  probable  explanation 
of  this  fact. 

A  comparison  of  the  coefficients  of  correlation  of  the  intelli- 
gence and  achievement  quotients  at  the  end  of  the  semester  with 
those  at  the  beginning  supports  the  conclusion  given  above.  These 
coefficients  were  as  follows: 


Experimental 
Beginning        End         Loss 
-.12=*=  .01  —  .36±.01       .24 


Control 
Beginning        End         Loss 
— .25  ±.01  —  .39  ±.01       .14 

This  comparison  shows  that  the  correlation  between  the  intelligence 
and  achievement  quotients  became  considerably  greater,  negatively, 
during  the  semester.  The  change  was  much  larger  in  the  experi- 
mental schools.  This  fact  emphasizes  the  conclusions  presented  in 
the  last  two  paragraphs  to  the  effect  that  there  was  a  relative 
decrease  in  the  degree  to  which  the  experimental  schools  capitalized 
the  capacities  of  their  pupils  into  achievement.  This  decrease  is 
even  more  definitely  shown  by  these  coefficients  than  by  the  data 
given  previously. 

The    gains    in    absolute    achievement    during    the    second 
semester  of  1921-22.     Table  XVIII,  which  is  similar  to  Table  XVI, 

[49] 


TABLE  XVIII.    GRADE  AND  SECTION  GAINS  AND  LOSSES  IN  ACHIEVE- 
MENT AGES  AND  QUOTIENTS  OF  THE  TWO  GROUPS  OF 
SCHOOLS  FROM  THE  BEGINNING  TO  THE  END 
OF  THE  SECOND  SEMESTER  OF  1921-22 


Grade 

Section 

Achievement  Ages 

Achievement  Quotients 

Experimental 

Control 

Experimental 

Control 

IA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

35 
40 
47 

18 

25 
45 
16 

4 

IIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

3 

7 

-7 

0 

7 
12 

5 

-4 

IIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

11 
10 
6 

15 

7 

10 
25 

17 

IIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

7 
7 

16 

-3 

2 

10 

19 

IIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

-16 
-15 

-2 

-4 

-6 
-9 
16 

13 

IVB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

6 
4 
15 

16 

1 
9 
3 

12 

IVA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

5 

13 
12 

19 

7 
9 
20 

11 

VB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

0 

10 

7 

12 

8 
11 
11 

11 

VA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

8 
12 
10 

3 

13 
10 
13 

4 

VIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

20 
17 
16 

5 

23 
13 
17 

5 

VIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

6 
5 
4 

3 

4 
8 
3 

7 

VIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

34 

9 

-9 

-12 

17 
5 
10 

-1 

VIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

-23 
2 
9 

6 

-5 
8 
9 

2 

VIIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

18 

-6 

-19 

25 

14 

1 

-1 

17 

VIIIA 

Slow 
Average 

6 
-11 

20 

-16 
1 

11 

All 

All 

7 

4 

7 

6 

[50] 


shows  that  the  increase  in  absolute  achievement  during  the  second 
semester  of  1921-22  averaged  seven  months  in  the  experimental 
schools  and  four  months  in  the  control  schools.  Thus  again  it 
appears  that  the  experimental  schools  were  more  efficient  as  regards 
the  achievement  of  their  pupils.  As  their  "progress  quotient"  was 
considerably  greater  during  this  semester  the  gain  in  absolute 
achievement  can  not  be  attributed  to  holding  back  the  pupils. 

The  achievement  quotients  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the 
second  semester  of  1921-22.  Table  XVIII  likewise  presents  the 
gains  of  the  two  groups  of  schools  in  achievement  quotients.  Ac- 
cording to  these  quotients  the  gain  of  the  experimental  schools 
was  only  one  point  greater  than  that  of  the  control  schools. 

The  correlation  of  achievement  and  intelligence  at  the 
beginning  and  end  of  the  second  semester  of  1921-22.  The 
coefficients  of  correlation  between  absolute  achievement  and  intelli- 
gence at  the  beginning  and  end  of  this  semester  were  as  follows : 

Experimental  Control 

Beginning      End  Gain  Beginning        End  Gain 

.54  ±.01     .75±.01  .21  .51±.01     .53±.01  .02 

Judging  from  these  coefficients  it  seems  that  there  was  a  very  de- 
cided gain  in  the  relation  of  achievement  to  intelligence  on  the  part 
of  the  experimental  schools,  but  practically  no  change  in  the  control 
schools. 

The  relation  of  the  intelligence  and  achievement  quo- 
tients at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  second  semester  of  1921- 
22.  Table  XIX,  which  is  similar  to  Tables  XIII  and  XVII,  pre- 
sents the  relation  of  the  achievement  and  intelligence  quotients  for 
the  second  semester  of  1921-22.  Comparing  the  figures  for  the 
beginning  and  end  of  this  semester  there  seems  to  have  been  no 
noticeable   change  in  the   situation. 

A  comparison  of  the  coefficients  of  correlation  of  the  intelligence 
and  achievement  quotients  is  more  favorable  to  the  experimental 
schools.     These  coefficients  were  as  follows: 


Experimental 

Control 

Beginning         End          Gain 

Beginning         End 

Loss 

-.36  ±.01  —.34  ±.01        .02 

—.39  ±.01  — .52±.01 

.13 

The  change  in  the  coefficients  of  the  control  schools  showed  a  de- 
crease  in   the   adaptation   of   instruction   to  pupils   of   all   levels   of 

[51] 


TABLE  XIX.    MEDIAN  ACHIEVEMENT  QUOTIENTS  OF  THE  PUPILS  OF 

DIFFERENT  LEVELS  OF  INTELLIGENCE  AT  THE  BEGINNING 

AND  END  OF  THE  SECOND  SEMESTER  OF  1921-22 


Achievement  Quotients 

Intelligence 
Quotient 

Experimental 

Control 

Beginning 

End 

Beginning 

End 

150-59 

98 

89 

85 

88 

140- 

96 

99     . 

88 

92 

130- 

102 

106 

95 

101 

120- 

100 

109 

99 

104 

110- 

102 

108 

104 

109 

100- 

106 

112 

105 

111 

90- 

106 

115 

105 

112 

80- 

110 

114 

107 

118 

70- 

111 

121 

113 

119 

60- 

114 

131 

119 

128 

50- 

125 

125 

132 

131 

All 

105 

113 

104 

109 

intelligence,  but  in  the  experimental  schools  such  adaptation  seems 
to  have  remained  about  the  same. 

The  achievements  of  the  two  groups  of  schools  during  the 
second  semester  of  1921-22  as  measured  by  the  Omnibus  Test. 

In  planning  this  experiment  it  was  decided  to  make  use  of  tests 
in  reading  and  arithmetic  because  those  are  generally  considered 
the  two  most  important  subjects  of  the  elementary  curriculum  and 
further  because  it  was  believed  that  the  results  obtained  would 
give  a  fairly  reliable  index  of  the  achievements  of  the  pupils  in  all 
subjects.  In  order  to  provide  a  partial  check  upon  this  latter 
assumption  a  test  was  devised  by  the  writer  and  given  to  the  pupils 
of  grade  VIB  and  above  at  the  regular  testing  period  in  May,  1922. 
This  test,  which  was  called  the  Omnibus  Test,1  contained  questions 
in  geography,  history,  grammar,  elementary  science  and  certain 
phases  of  arithmetic  not  covered  by  the  standardized  tests  used. 
The  scores  made  on  this  test  were  translated  into  achievement 
ages  and  quotients  in  the  same  way  as  for  the  other  tests  of 
achievement. 

Table  XX  presents  the  median  ages  and  quotients  for  the 
various  grades  and  sections  of  the  two  groups  of  schools.  It  may 
be  seen  from  this  table  that  the  showing  made  upon  this  test  by 


*See  Appendix  C. 


[52] 


TABLE  XX.    MEDIAN  GRADE  AND  SECTION  OMNIBUS  ACHIEVEMENT 

AGES  AND  QUOTIENTS  OF  THE  PUPILS  OF  THE  TWO  GROUPS  OF 

SCHOOLS  AT  THE  END  OF  THE  SECOND  SEMESTER  OF  1921-22 


Grade 

Section 

Aj 

;es 

Quotients 

Experimental 

Control 

Experimental 

Control 

VIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

10-8 
12-3 
10-8 

10-10 

97 

102 

90 

88 

VIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

10-8 
11-1 
12-2 

15-2 

85 
89 
85 

120 

VIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

11-10 

12-0 

15-3 

14-10 

95 

92 

100 

109 

VIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

11-1 
14-9 
16-8 

14-4 

86 
102 
114 

107 

VIIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

12-11 

13-5 

15-2 

15-7 

98 
87 
90 

108 

VIIIA 

Slow 
Average 

11-7 
14-11 

17-3 

88 
96 

111 

All 

12-8 

14-11 

94 

107 

the  control  schools  was  very  much  better  than  that  made  by  the 
experimental  schools.  The  average  difference  was  over  two  years 
of  achievement  age  and  thirteen  points  of  achievement  quotient. 
Inasmuch  as  the  pupils  were  not  given  a  similar  test  at  any  pre- 
vious time  the  relative  gain  can  not  be  computed.  The  difference 
between  the  two  groups  is  so  great,  however,  that  it  is  evidently 
significant.  A  very  probable  conclusion  is  that  in  the  experimental 
schools  there  was  a  tendency  to  emphasize  the  instruction  in  read- 
ing and  arithmetic  to  the  neglect  of  that  in  the  other  subjects.  This 
tendency  was  probably  not  due  to  the  fact  that  the  teachers  and 
pupils  were  consciously  striving  to  prepare  to  make  better  scores  upon 
the  tests  but  that  merely  through  the  use  of  the  tests  in  reading 
and  arithmetic  attention  was  called  to  pupils'  weaknesses  in  these 
subjects  and  therefore  unusual  care  was  taken  to  correct  these 
weaknesses. 

Individual  opinion  as  to  the  relative  importance  of  arithmetic 


[53] 


and  reading  as  compared  with  the  elementary  school  subjects  cov- 
ered by  the  Omnibus  Test  will  largely  determine  one's  belief  as 
to  whether  or  not  the  experimental  schools  made  a  relative  gain  in 
achievement  during  the  course  of  the  experiment.  Inasmuch  as 
there  was  an  average  relative  gain  of  only  about  one  point  per  semes- 
ter in  the  achievement  quotient  on  the  part  of  the  experimental 
schools  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  writer  that  there  was  not  any 
greater  efficiency  in  the  achievement  of  this  group  of  schools.  On 
the  other  hand,  he  does  not  believe  it  should  be  asserted  that  in 
so  far  as  achievement  was  concerned  there  was  a  decidedly  smaller 
degree  of  efficiency. 

Summary.  The  data  presented  in  this  chapter  considering 
them  from  the  standpoint  of  the  experimental  schools  relative  to 
the  control  schools  may  be  briefly  summarized  as  follows: 

1.  At  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  the  median  achievement 
age  as  measured  by  the  tests  used  was  four  months  lower. 
During  the  experiment  slightly  greater  efficiency  was  shown, 
averaging  about  one  month  per  semester,  according  to  the 
reading  and  arithmetic  test  results.  According  to  the  results 
on  the  Omnibus  Test,  however,  the  median  achievement  age 
was  twenty-seven  months  lower  at  the  conclusion  of  the 
experiment. 

2.  The  median  achievement  quotient  derived  from  the  arith- 
metic and  reading  tests  was  two  points  greater  both  at  the 
beginning  and  end  of  the  experiment.  Allowing  for  the 
effect  of  the  new  entrants  and  eliminees,  however,  there 
was  a  relative  gain  of  about  one  point  per  semester.  The 
Omnibus  Test  achievement  quotient  was  thirteen  points 
lower. 

3.  The  correlation  of  intelligence  and  achievement  was  .08 
greater  at  the  beginning  and  .25  greater  at  the  close  of  the 
experiment. 

4.  At  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  instruction  was  some- 
what better  adapted  to  the  inferior  than  to  the  superior 
pupils  in  both  groups  of  schools.  On  the  whole  there  was 
little  change  in  this  situation. 

Considering  these   items   together   it   seems   that   in   so   far   as 

[54] 


achievement  was  concerned  the  efficiency  of  the  experimental 
schools  was  no  greater  than  that  of  the  control  schools.  The  slightly 
greater  efficiency  in  reading  and  arithmetic  was  at  least  balanced 
by  the  results  of  the  Omnibus  Test.  If  we  assume  that  the  meas- 
urement of  achievement  shows  no  advantage  for  either  group  of 
schools  it  may  be  said  that  the  experimental  plan  of  organization 
was  more  efficient  than  the  traditional  plan  because  of  the  fact  that 
the  progress  of  the  pupils  was  considerably  greater  in  the  experi- 
mental than  in  the  control  schools.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
considered  that  the  Omnibus  Test  showed  a  distinctly  greater  de- 
gree of  efficiency  as  regards  the  total  achievement  for  the  control 
schools,  this  must  be  balanced  against  the  greater  progress  made 
in  the  other  group  and  a  less  definite  conclusion  reached. 


[55] 


CHAPTER  V 

A  STUDY  OF  THE  PUPILS  WHO  REMAINED  IN  SCHOOL 
THROUGHOUT  THE  COURSE  OF  THE  EXPERIMENT 

Although  there  was  no  reason  to  suspect  that  a  study  of  the 
records  of  the  pupils  who  participated  in  this  experiment  through- 
out the  three  semesters  that  it  continued  would  yield  results  and 
conclusions  materially  different  from  those  presented  in  Chapters 
III  and  IV,  yet  it  was  thought  desirable  to  make  such  a  study. 
Therefore  this  chapter  will  present  certain  data  concerning  the 
pupils  who  were  in  the  schools  in  February,  1921,  and  remained 
therein  until  the  close  of  the  experiment.  These  pupils  did  not 
compose  as  large  a  group  as  might  be  expected  because  the  pupil 
population  of  both  groups  of  schools  was  very  unstable.  Slightly 
less  than  60  percent  of  the  pupils  tested  at  the  beginning  of  the 
experiment  were  still  in  the  schools  at  its  conclusion.  In  making 
a  study  of  these  pupils  the  tabulations  were  not  made  by  separate 
semesters  but  all  three  semesters  were  taken  together. 

The  placement  of  the  pupils  and  their  progress  through- 
out the  grades.  Tables  XXI  and  XXII  show  the  percents  of 
pupils  in  the  two  groups  of  schools  gaining  or  losing  the  given 
number  of  semesters  during  the  three  semesters  that  the  experi- 
ment continued.  From  these  tables  it  may  be  seen  that  only  34 
percent  of  the  pupils  of  the  experimental  schools  made  just  three 
semesters  of  progress,  whereas  62  percent  of  those  of  the  control 
schools  did  so.  The  percents  making  more  than  this  amount  of 
progress  were  26  and  7,  respectively,  and  those  making  less,  40 
and  32.  The  average  amount  of  progress  made  was  2.79  semesters 
in  the  experimental  schools  but  only  2.67  semesters  in  the  control 
schools.  Dividing  these  figures  by  three  to  reduce  them  to  a  semes- 
ter basis  and  then  by  the  median  I.  Q.'s  gives  "progress  quotients" 
of  93  and  89,  respectively.  Therefore  it  appears  that  in  so  far  as 
progress  was  concerned  the  experimental  plan  of  organization  was 
somewhat  more  efficient  for  those  pupils  remaining  in  school 
throughout   the   experiment   than   was    the   traditional   plan.     The 

[56] 


TABLE  XXI.    PERCENTS  OF  THE  PUPILS  OF  THE  EXPERIMENTAL 

SCHOOLS  PRESENT  THROUGHOUT  THE  EXPERIMENT  THAT 

GAINED  OR  LOST  THE  GIVEN  NUMBER  OF  SEMESTERS 


Feb.,  1921 

Semesters  Gained  or  Lost 

Grade 

Section 

-5 

-1 

0 

+  1 

+2 

+2K 

+3 

+3^ 

+4 

+4K 

+5 

+5K 

+6 

+7 

+10 

+11 

IB 

Slow 
Average 

22 
11 

52 
28 

5 

1 

20 
33 

2 
25 

2 

IA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

3 

9 
4 
4 

38 
15 

1 

38 
44 
22 

8 

14 
16 

2 

17 
27 

27 

3 
2 

2 

1 

1 

IIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

23 
6 

51 

33 
9 

2 
9 

5 

15 
39 
36 

8 
9 

2 

3 

23 

27 

IIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 
1 

8 
2 

59 
12 
6 

25 
52 
13 

4 
11 

29 

1 
9 
19 

12 

32 

IIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

8 
6 
3 

59 

27 

6 

6 

19 
47 
34 

12 
8 
9 

2 
17 

17 

1 
4 

6 

3 

4 

2 

IIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

17 
7 
2 

47 

20 

3 

23 
39 
32 

7 
16 
13 

2 

10 
22 

3 
4 

22 

3 

2 

5 

IVB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

7 

46 
19 

2 

31 
36 

1 

7 
8 
1 

7 

25 

3 

6 
2 

1 

6 
1 

IVA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

8 

2 

44 
16 

42 
41 

4 

2 

20 

11 

5 

2 

VB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

1 

5 

54 
14 

5 

26 
39 
11 

5 
11 

5 

7 

16 

2 

27 
67 

2 

VA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

2 

10 

54 
22 

28 
44 
20 

1 
13 

6 
11 

60 

8 
13 

7 

VIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

13 

3 

20 
14 

55 
57 
13 

3 
3 

5 
12 

7 

5 
12 

77 

2 

VIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

2 

9 

61 

20 
10 

20 
46 
10 

7 
18 

16 
80 

VIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

7 

60 
16 

2 

33 
83 

VIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

8 

100 
92 
100 

VIIIB 

Slow 
Average 

100 

VIIIA 

Slow 
Average 

All 

All 

.04 

.04 

.4 

7 

32 

1 

34 

7 

10 

7 

1 

.4 

.2 

.04 

.04 

.04 

[57] 


TABLE  XXII.    PERCENTS  OF  THE  PUPILS  OF  THE  CONTROL  SCHOOLS 
PRESENT  THROUGHOUT  THE  EXPERIMENT  THAT  GAINED  OR  LOST 
THE  GIVEN  NUMBER  OF  SEMESTERS 


February 

1921 

-1 

0 

+  1 

+2 

+3 

+4 

+5 

+6 

Grade 

IB 

1 

16 

51 

30 

3 

IA 

1 

7 

24 

55 

13 

IIB 

7 

37 

56 

1 

IIA 

1 

4 

31 

60 

3 

IIIB 

1 

6 

25 

64 

2 

3 

IIIA 

4 

5 

26 

58 

7 

IVB 

3 

16 

76 

3 

2 

IVA 

1 

23 

73 

2 

VB 

1 

17 

78 

2 

1 

VA 

3 

17 

62 

17 

1 

VIB 

21 

69 

10 

VIA 

2 

22 

64 

12 

VIIB 

5 

20 

75 

VIIA 

7 

7 

87 

VIIIB 

All 

.1 

1 

5 

26 

62 

6 

.2 

.3 

difference  of  four  points  in  the  "progress  quotients,"  especially  when 
it  is  remembered  that  this  is  an  average  difference  for  three  semes- 
ters, is  large  enough  to  justify  the  above  statement. 

The  achievements  of  the  pupils.  Table  XXIII  presents  the 
median  achievement  ages  and  quotients  for  the  two  groups  of  schools 
at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  experiment.  From  these  data  it 
may  be  seen  that  the  gain  on  the  part  of  the  pupils  of  the  experi- 
mental schools  was  three  months  of  achievement  age  greater  than 
that  for  the  other  group  of  schools  and  that  the  gain  in  achievement 
quotient  was  one  point  greater.  These  figures  show  that  for  the 
pupils  who  remained  throughout  the  course  of  the  experiment  the 
experimental  schools  were  slightly  more  efficient  in  so  far  as  achieve- 
ment was  concerned. 

Summary.  The  evidence  afforded  by  the  study  of  the  pupils 
who  remained  in  school  during  the  course  of  the  experiment  shows 
that  for  these  pupils  the  experimental  plan  of  procedure  resulted 
in  appreciably  greater  progress  according  to  the  ability  of  the 
children  and  in  slightly  greater  achievement.  The  difference  in  the 
"progress  quotients"  was  four  points  and  that  in  the  achievement 
quotients,   one   point.     Thus   the   general   conclusion   to   be   drawn 

[58] 


TABLE    XXIII. 
PUPILS  WHO 

IN 


MEDIAN  ACHIEVEMENT  AGES  AND  QUOTIENTS  OF 
WERE  PRESENT  THROUGHOUT  THE  EXPERIMENT 
FEBRUARY,  1921  AND  MAY,  1922 


1921 

Achievement  Age 

Achievement  Quotient 

Grade 

Section 

Experimental 

Control 

Experimental 

Cor 

trol 

1921 

1922 

1921 

1922 

1921 

1922 

1921 

1922 

IA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

6-5 

5-10 

5-6 

7-7 
9-7 
11-6 

6-6 

9-2 

101 
88 
70 

113 
132 

125 

91 

108 

IIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

6-6 
6-7 
8-0 

6-5 
8-4 
9-5 

7-7 

7-6 

100 
90 
103 

100 
106 
108 

101 

93 

IIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

6-7 
7-6 
8-1 

8-11 

9-8 

9-6 

8-1 

9-6 

90 
93 
91 

112 
111 
102 

93 

105 

IIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

8-2 

8-10 

8-10 

9-5 

10-0 

8-11 

9-1 

10-8 

109 
106 

98 

118 
107 
109 

105 

104 

IIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

8-11 
10-1 
9-10 

8-8 
9-5 
10-6 

9-8 

10-0 

115 
113 

107 

105 
99 
92 

115 

98 

IVB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

8-11 
9-11 
10-6 

9-4 
10-4 
10-2 

9-1 

10-11 

112 
106 
105 

103 
110 
100 

108 

115 

IVA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

9-7 
10-11 
10-6 

10-7 

11-10 

12-10 

10-3 

12-3 

107 
111 
100 

111 
117 
111 

102 

124 

VB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

9-7 
11-0 
10-5 

11-8 
12-8 
12-10 

10-7 

11-11 

107 

110 

98 

116 
115 
114 

104 

114 

VA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

10-2 
11-8 
11-11 

12-0 
13-8 
16-10 

11-1 

12-1 

106 
108 
103 

117 
118 

137 

107 

111 

VIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

10-1 

11-11 

13-10 

12-10 

14-4 

16-4 

12-1 

14-1 

104 
106 
112 

124 
118 
116 

107 

120 

VIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

11-7 
12-6 
15-0 

13-2 
14-0 
14-6 

12-1 

14-5 

112 
104 
112 

111 
114 

110 

107 

112 

VIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

12-5 
12-4 
14-6 

15-2 
13-7 
15-10 

13-11 

14-4 

108 
103 
103 

123 
117 
118 

105 

108 

VIIA 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

12-6 
13-7 
15-6 

13-7 
16-1 
18-2 

14-7 

14-9 

110 
103 
102 

110 
114 
124 

101 

113 

VIIIB 

Slow 

Average 

Fast 

ii^o 

16-5 
17-0 
19-8 

16-5 

16-7 

ioo 

125 
114 

120 

118 

120 

VIIIA 

Slow 
Average 

14-0 
17-10 

17-1 

95 
113 

112 

All 

All 

9-10 

11-6 

10-2 

11-7 

106 

112 

104 

109 

from  this  study  is  the  same  as  that  drawn  from  the  study  of  all 
the  pupils,  that  the  experimental  plan  of  organization  was  some- 
what more  efficient  than  was  the  traditional  plan. 


[59] 


CHAPTER  VI 

A  SPECIAL  STUDY  OF  THE  BRIGHTER  AND 
DULLER  PUPILS 

It  is  evident  that  such  an  experiment  as  the  one  described  in 
this  bulletin  might  not  have  the  same  effect  upon  the  efficiency  of 
the  instruction  of  the  brighter,  the  average  and  the  duller  pupils. 
In  view  of  this  fact  a  special  study  was  made  of  the  brighter  and 
another  of  the  duller  pupils  in  order  to  discover  the  effect  of  the 
experimental  plan  of  organization  upon  the  efficiency  of  the  instruc- 
tion of  these  two  groups.  For  the  purpose  of  the  two  studies  the 
records  of  those  pupils  whose  I.  Q.'s  as  found  at  the  first  testing 
period  were  115  or  higher  and  of  those  whose  I.  Q.'s  were  less 
than  80  were  used.  The  former  group  included  about  one-sixth  of 
the  total  number  of  pupils  and  the  latter  group  about  one-fifth. 
All  records  not  complete  for  the  duration  of  the  experiment  were 
rejected  so  that  the  number  of  pupils  actually  included  in  these 
studies  was  reduced  to  199  brighter  pupils  and  514  duller  pupils 
from  the  experimental  schools  and  396  brighter  and  291  duller 
pupils  from  the  control  schools. 

The  placement  of  the  brighter  pupils  and  their  progress 
through  the  grades.  Of  the  199  pupils  of  the  experimental  schools 
2  percent  were  placed  in  the  slow  sections,  23  percent  in  the  average 
sections  and  75  percent  in  the  fast  sections  at  the  beginning  of  the 
experiment.  When  it  closed  the  respective  percents  were  1,  51  and 
49.  The  marked  reduction  of  the  number  in  the  fast  sections  was 
due  to  the  fact  that  by  the  close  of  the  experiment  these  pupils 
had  gained  one  semester  or  more  and  in  many  cases  were  not  quite 
bright  enough  to  attempt  to  make  further  gain,  at  least  immediately. 

Table  XXIV  shows  that  the  number  of  semesters  gained  by 
the  brighter  pupils  of  the  experimental  schools  varied  from  two  to 
six,  and  by  those  of  the  control  schools  from  one  to  four.  The 
percents  of  the  brighter  pupils  of  the  experimental  schools  making 
less  than  regular,  regular  and  more  than  regular  progress,  were  9, 
23,  and  68,  respectively.     In  the  control  schools  the  corresponding 

[60] 


TABLE  XXIV.     PERCENTS  OF  THE  BRIGHTER  AND  OF  THE  DULLER 

PUPILS  OF  THE  TWO  GROUPS  OF  SCHOOLS  GAINING  OR 

LOSING  THE  GIVEN  NUMBER  OF  SEMESTERS 

DURING  THE  EXPERIMENT. 


-5 

0 

1 

2 

2K 

3 

3K 

4 

4K 

5 

5^ 

6 

7 

10 

11 

Average 
Progress 

"Progress 
Quotient" 

Brighter    Pupils 

Experimental 

Slow 

25 

25 

50 

3.63 

97 

Average 

15 

42 

22 

11 

7 

2 

2 

3.29 

92 

Fast 

5 

2 

17 

9 

19 

40 

3 

3 

2 

3.97 

106 

All 

7 

2 

2^ 

13 

IS 

32 

3 

2 

2 

3.80 

102 

Control 

2 

15 

72 

11 

2.92 

77 

Duller  Pupils 

Experimental 

Slow 

.2 

2 

14 

57 

.2 

20 

4 

3 

.5 

.2 

2.14 

99 

Average 

13 

27 

2 

43 

3 

8 

13 

1* 

1* 

1* 

1* 

2.91 

133 

Fast 

13 

25 

13 

38 

1 

3.13 

149 

All 

.2 

1 

14 

54 

.4 

23 

4 

4 

.2 

.2* 

.2* 

.2* 

.2* 

2.26 

105 

Control 

1 

8 

36 

50 

5 

.3 

1* 

2.56 

119 

♦These  large  amounts  of  progress  were  made  by  foreign-born  pupils  who,  at  the  beginning  of  the  ex- 
periment, were  so  handicapped  by  their  inability  to  use  the  English  language  that  they  made  low  test 
scores  and  did  poor  school  work.  Many  of  these  pupils  were  able  to  skip  the  work  of  several  semesters  as 
soon  as  the  language  difficulty  was  overcome. 


figures  were  17,  72  and  11.  Table  XXIV  also  shows  that  the  aver- 
age progress  of  the  brighter  pupils  of  the  experimental  schools  was 
.88  of  a  semester  greater  than  that  of  the  pupils  of  the  control 
schools  and  that  their  "progress  quotient"  was  twenty-five  points 
greater.  These  differences  show  that  the  experimental  schools  were 
much  more  effective  in  so  far  as  the  rate  of  progress  of  the  brighter 
pupils  was  concerned. 

The  achievements  of  the  brighter  pupils.  The  table  just 
below  gives  the  median  achievement  ages  and  quotients  of  the 
brighter  pupils  of  both  groups  of  schools  in  February,  1921,  and 
May,  1922. 


Control 

1921         1922  Gain 

11-2        12-7  17 

98          104  6 


Experimental 

1921         1922  Gain 

Achievement  Age              11-4      12-11  19 

Achievement  Quotient        103          112  9 

From  these  data  it  is  evident  that  the  more  rapid  progress  of  the 
pupils  of  the  experimental  schools  did  not  result  in  a  lessening  of 
their  relative  achievement  but  was  accompanied  by  a  small  gain. 
This  gain  in  relative  achievement  amounted  to  two  months  in  terms 
of  achievement  age  or  three  points  in  terms  of  achievement  quotient. 
Thus  considering  progress  and  achievement  together,  it  may  be  said 
that  for  the  brighter  pupils  the  experimental  plan  of  organization 
resulted  in  a  marked  increase  of  efficiency. 


[61] 


The  placement  of  the  duller  pupils  and  their  progress 
through  the  grades.  Of  the  514  duller  pupils  from  the  experi- 
mental schools,  86  percent  were  placed  in  the  slow  sections,  12 
percent  in  the  average  and  2  percent  in  the  fast  sections  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  experiment.  At  the  close  of  the  experiment  the  re- 
spective percents  were  85,  13  and  2.  Thus  it  is  apparent  that  there 
was  practically  no  change  in  the  number  of  pupils  in  each  of  the 
three  sectional  groups. 

Table  XXIV  shows  that  the  number  of  the  duller  pupils  making 
more  than  normal  progress  was  not  very  large  in  either  group  of 
schools.  Slightly  over  one-half  of  the  duller  pupils  of  the  experi- 
mental schools  made  regular  progress  in  the  slow  sections,  which 
resulted  in  their  covering  two  semesters'  work  during  the  three 
semesters  of  the  experiment.  Slightly  less  than  one-fourth  of  them 
made  three  semesters'  progress  by  maintaining  membership  in  the 
average  sections.  Ten  percent  managed  to  make  more  than  normal 
progress,  while  15  percent  made  less  than  two  semesters.  In 
the  control  schools  50  percent  made  normal  progress,  45  percent 
less  and  6  percent  more.  The  average  progress  was  three-tenths  of 
a  semester  greater  for  the  pupils  of  the  control  schools  and  the 
"progress  quotient"  fourteen  points  greater. 

Analyzing  the  data  presented  above  it  is  apparent  that  more 
of  the  duller  pupils  were  failed  in  the  control  schools  than  in  the 
experimental  schools.  Since,  however,  pupils  were  able  to  advance 
in  the  slow  sections  without  failure  while  covering  less  than  the 
normal  amount  of  work  the  average  progress  was  less  in  the 
experimental  schools.  As  was  true  in  the  case  of  the  brighter 
pupils  more  of  the  pupils  from  the  experimental  schools  made 
extra  progress. 

The  achievements  of  the  duller  pupils.  The  table  just  be- 
low gives  the  median  achievement  ages  and  quotients  of  the  duller 
pupils  of  both  groups  of  schools  in  February,  1921,  and  May,  1922. 

Experimental  Control 

1921         1922        Gain  1921  1922  Gain 

Achievement  Age              8-10        10-6          20  9-3  10-9  18 

Achievement  Quotient        112          114            2  115  114  -1 

These  data  show  that  the  gain  made  by  the  duller  pupils  of  the 
experimental  schools  was  two  months  of  achievement  age  greater 

[62] 


than  that  made  by  those  of  the  control  schools  and  that  their  gain 
in  achievement  quotient  was  three  points  greater.  Therefore  it  can 
be  said  that  in  so  far  as  achievement  was  concerned  the  experi- 
mental plan  of  procedure  was  slightly  more  efficient  for  the  duller 
pupils  than  the  traditional  plan  used  in  the  control  schools. 

Summary.  A  special  study  of  the  brighter  and  duller  pupils 
who  were  in  school  throughout  the  experiment  yields  the  following 
results  and  conclusions: 

1.  The  brighter  pupils  of  the  experimental  schools  had  a 
"progress  quotient"  twenty-five  points  greater  than  did  those 
of  the  control  schools. 

2.  The  relative  gain  of  the  brighter  pupils  of  the  experimental 
schools  in  median  achievement  quotient  was  three  points. 

3.  The  "progress  quotient"  of  the  duller  pupils  of  the  experi- 
mental schools  was  fourteen  points  less  than  that  of  the  duller 
pupils  of  the  control  schools. 

4.  The  duller  pupils  of  the  experimental  schools  made  a  rela- 
tive gain  of  three  points  in  their  median  achievement  quo- 
tient. 

A  fair  statement  of  the  conclusions  to  be  drawn  would  seem  to  be 
that  the  experimental  plan  of  organization  was  considerably  more 
efficient  than  the  traditional  plan  in  so  far  as  it  concerned  the 
brighter  pupils,  but  that  in  the  case  of  the  duller  pupils  it  was 
somewhat  less  efficient. 


[63] 


CHAPTER  VH 

RESULTS  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

A  brief  statement  of  the  results  of  this  experiment.     The 

results  actually  obtained  in  this  experiment  may  be  listed  as  follows: 

I.  At  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  the  placement  of  the 
pupils  involved  a  relative  loss  in  placement  of  .05  semester 
on  the  part  of  the  experimental  schools.  This  and  the  other 
amounts  of  progress  are  computed  relative  to  the  capacity 
of  the  pupils. 

II.  The  main  study,  which  included  all  the  pupils  of  the  two 
groups  of  schools,  showed  that: 

1.  The    average   progress    was    .06    semester    larger    in    the 
experimental  schools  than  in  the  control  schools. 

2.  There  was  a  relative  gain  for  the  experimental  schools  of 

about  one  point  per  semester  in  the   achievement  quo- 
tient as   measured  by  the  arithmetic   and  reading  tests. 

3.  The  achievement  quotient  derived  from  the  Omnibus  Test 

was  thirteen  points  less  for  the  experimental  schools. 

III.  A  special  study  of  the  pupils  who  remained  in  school 
throughout  the  experiment  gave  the  following  results: 

1.  The  average  progress   for  the   experimental   schools   was 

.04  semester  greater  than  that  for  the  other  group. 

2.  There  was   a   relative  gain  for  the  experimental   schools 

of  one  point  in  the  achievement  quotient. 

IV.  A  special  study  of  the  brighter  pupils  revealed  the  follow- 
ing facts: 

1.  Those  of  the  experimental  schools   progressed  at  a   rate 

.25  semester  greater  than  did  those  of  the  control  schools. 

2.  The  relative  gain  in  the  achievement  quotient  on  the  part 

of    the    pupils    of    the    experimental    schools    was    three 
points. 

V.  A  special  study  of  the  duller  pupils  gave  the  following  re- 
sults: 

[64] 


1.  Those  of  the  experimental  schools  made,  on  the  average, 

.14  semester  less  progress  per  semester  than  did  those  of 
the  other  group  of  schools. 

2.  There  was  a  relative  gain  of  three  points  in  the  median 

achievement  quotient  for  the   experimental   schools. 

It  seems  fair  to  summarize  these  results  by  saying  that  for 
pupils  of  all  degrees  of  intelligence  combined  the  experimental  plan 
of  organization  was  more  efficient  as  regards  progress  and  about 
the  same  as  regards  achievement,  as  compared  with  the  traditional 
plan.  The  difference  in  progress  was  considerably  more  than  enough 
to  balance  the  relative  loss  caused  by  the  placement  of  the  pupils 
at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment. 

Conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  these  results  and  their  ap- 
plication to  school  systems  in  general.  The  comparisons  that 
were  made  between  the  schools  taking  part  in  this  experiment  and 
certain  other  city  school  systems  seem  to  show  that  the  results 
obtained  in  this  experiment  and  the  conclusions  based  thereon  are 
fairly  applicable  to  school  systems  in  general.  Assuming  that  this 
conclusion  is  warranted,  the  question  remains  as  to  whether  or  not 
the  classification  of  pupils  along  lines  similar  to  those  followed  in 
this  experiment  should  be  recommended  to  school  administrators 
as  a  practical  method  of  procedure.  In  considering  this  question 
it  should  be  recognized  that  the  public  school  superintendent  or 
supervisor  can  ordinarily  exercise  a  somewhat  higher  degree  of 
supervision  over  the  schools  under  his  control  than  could  the 
writer  over  the  schools  participating  in  this  experiment.  Therefore, 
it  should  be  possible  to  secure  somewhat  more  favorable  conditions 
for  carrying  out  the  experimental  plan  of  organization  than  were 
possible  in  this  experiment. 

In  the  second  place,  the  question  arises  as  to  how  large  a  gain  in 
output,  that  is  to  say  in  progress  and  achievement,  is  required  to 
justify  a  certain  amount  of  additional  investment.  In  this  experi- 
ment the  cost  in  both  money  and  time  was  considerably  larger  per 
pupil  than  would  be  necessary  in  the  usual  public  school  situation. 
Ordinarily  pupils  would  not  need  to  be  tested  so  often  nor  would 
it  be  necessary  to  use  tests  of  achievement.  Furthermore,  there 
were  many  tabulations  and  computations  made  in  this  project  that 
would  not  be  necessary  in  the  ordinary  school  situation.     The  cost 

[65] 


of  group  intelligence  tests  is  only  a  few  cents  per  pupil,  in  some 
cases  being  as  low  as  one  and  one-half  cents  and  in  few  more  than 
ten  cents.  If  the  teachers  scored  the  papers  there  would  be  no 
extra  expense  involved  therein.  Thus  the  cost  of  the  tests  and  a 
rather  small  amount  of  clerk  hire  would  be  all  the  unusual  outlay 
required  to  make  use  of  group  intelligence  tests  for  purposes  of 
placing  pupils.  Certain  plans  of  doing  this  have  involved  a  de- 
crease in  the  average  number  of  pupils  per  teacher  or  per  room  or 
some  other  element  of  additional  investment.  In  this  experiment 
there  was  no  such  expenditure,  nor  need  there  be  in  the  usual 
situation.  The  desirability  of  reducing  class  size,  whether  in  this 
or  some  other  type  of  organization,  is  a  separate  problem.  There- 
fore the  total  cost  of  the  type  of  organization  used  in  the  experi- 
mental schools  amounts  to  only  a  fraction  of  one  percent  of  the 
total  expenditure  per  pupil.  As  the  gain  in  progress  on  the  part  of 
the  experimental  schools  amounted  to  several  percent  of  the  total 
progress  and  as  there  was  no  loss  in  achievement,  and,  furthermore, 
as  it  is  probable  that  under  ordinary  conditions  the  gain  would  be 
greater  than  it  was  in  this  project  it  would  seem  that  an  additional 
investment  of  a  fraction  of  one  percent  would  be  entirely  justifiable. 

There  remains,  however,  another  point  that  must  be  consid- 
ered in  this  connection.  In  Chapter  I,  output  was  defined  as  being 
composed  of  progress  and  achievement.  There  are  undoubtedly 
other  less  tangible  factors  that  constitute  a  part,  and  a  rather 
important  part,  of  the  output  of  a  school  system.  Such  outcomes 
as  industry,  good  citizenship,  intellectual  honesty,  social  develop- 
ment, etc.,  were  either  not  measured  in  this  experiment  or  measured 
so  indirectly  that  no  assumptions  can  be  made  concerning  their 
presence  and  amount.  This  fact  does  not  invalidate  the  conclu- 
sions reached,  but  merely  signifies  that  these  other  outcomes  of 
instruction  must  be  considered  in  their  interpretation.  The  fact 
that  we  cannot  measure  the  total  output  should  not  bar  us  from 
measuring  that  which  can  be  measured  nor  from  proceeding  ac- 
cording to  what  our  measurements  reveal  until  more  complete 
measurements  are  possible. 

It  must  also  be  remembered,  as  was  stated  in  Chapter  I,  that 
there  were  really  two  problems  involved  in  this  experiment.  It  is  pos- 
sible that  a  portion  or  all  of  the  results  obtained  in  this  experiment 

1661 


might  be  secured  in  a  somewhat  similar  experiment  in  which  the 
pupils  were  classified  according  to  teachers'  judgments.  Especially 
might  this  occur  if  the  teachers  participating  were  well-trained  and 
experienced,  and  perhaps  had  given  special  study  to  the  problem 
of  classifying  pupils  according  to  their  capacities.  There  were  sev- 
eral reasons  why  the  pupils  in  the  control  schools  were  not  so 
classified,  the  chief  one  being  that  it  was  impracticable  in  the  given 
situation.  It  may  be  suggested  that  since  fast,  average  and  slow 
sections  were  not  formed  in  the  control  schools,  they  should  not 
have  been  formed  in  the  experimental  schools.  As  was  stated  in 
Chapter  I,  the  use  of  intelligence  tests  for  the  purpose  of  placing 
pupils  implies  that  the  pupils  be  placed  according  to  their  capaci- 
ties and  that  it  would  not  have  been  possible  to  arrange  an  experi- 
ment that  would  show  the  value  of  intelligence  tests  for  the  purpose 
mentioned  unless  such  sections  had  been  formed.  Also  the  writer 
does  not  believe  that  the  classification  of  the  pupils  of  the  experi- 
mental schools  according  to  the  teachers'  judgments  would  have 
yielded  as  favorable  results  as  did  their  classification  according  to 
the  principles  enumerated  in  Chapter  I.  This  belief  is  based  upon 
a  study  of  the  accounts  of  various  experiments  and  of  the 
teachers'  estimates  of  capacity  and  the  average  school  marks  actually 
given  in  this  experiment.  These  disagreed  with  the  results  of  the 
intelligence  tests  in  many  cases  and  in  most  of  these  the  latter  ap- 
peared to  furnish  a  more  reliable  means  of  predicting  future 
progress  and  achievement  than  did  the  former. 

In  considering  the  conclusions  reached  from  this  study  it  should 
be  borne  in  mind  that  the  total  time  included  was  only  three 
semesters.  It  is  probable  that  if  the  experiment  had  continued 
for  a  longer  time,  say  for  eight  or  ten  years,  certain  effects  would 
have  been  noted  that  did  not  appear  during  the  three  semesters  or 
effects  that  were  present  might  have  appeared  in  much  more  pro- 
nounced fashion.  In  general  it  seemed  that  as  the  experiment 
progressed  from  semester  to  semester  the  plan  of  organization 
being  tried  out  gave  better  results.  If  the  teachers  had  had  several 
years'  experience  with  such  a  plan  the  results  might  have  been 
still  more  favorable.  The  plan  was  new  to  the  teachers  and  hence 
they  probably  could  not  do  their  best  work  at  first.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  possible  that  a  division  of  the  pupils  into  three  groups 

[67] 


might  tend  to  make  the  teachers  feel  less  responsible  for  the 
achievements  of  the  pupils,  especially  those  of  the  duller  ones. 
They  might  more  or  less  unconsciously  come  to  feel  that  the  pupils 
placed  in  the  slow  sections  could  not  be  expected  to  do  a  very  high 
quality  of  work  and  that  therefore  they  were  not  worth  much  at- 
tention and  effort.  Such  a  result  would,  of  course,  be  decidedly 
undesirable. 

Considering  the  facts  and  possibilities  mentioned  above  it  is 
the  opinion  of  the  writer  that  the  use  of  intelligence  tests  as  the 
chief  basis  of  classifying  pupils  increases  the  output  of  the  school 
sufficiently  to  justify  the  additional  expense  involved.  It  is  not, 
however,  a  panacea  for  all  inefficient  schools  nor  a  method  of  organ- 
ization that  should  be  rushed  into  by  every  school  administrator 
before  he  has  made  a  careful  study  of  its  installation  and  operation. 


[68] 


APPENDIX  A 

A  COMPARISON  OF  THE  PUPILS  ENTERING  AND  LEAV- 

ING  SCHOOL  DURING  THE  EXPERIMENT  WITH  THE 

TOTAL  NUMBER  OF  PUPILS 

Necessity  for  this  comparison.  Inasmuch  as  the  shifting  of 
membership  within  both  groups  of  schools  was  so  large,  it  seemed 
wise  to  take  definite  account  of  its  effect  upon  the  results  and  con- 
clusions reached.  In  Chapters  III  and  IV7,  where  these  results  and 
conclusions  are  given,  this  effect  has  been  considered.  It  was  more 
or  less  probable  that  the  number  or  mental  capacities  of  the  pupils 
eliminated  from  the  experimental  schools  might  be  considerably 
influenced  by  the  conditions  of  the  experiment.  For  example,  the 
recognition  of  the  ability  of  the  brighter  pupils  might  tend  to  hold 
a  larger  percent  of  them  in  school  and  the  placing  of  the  duller  pupils 
in  slow  sections  might  cause  more  of  them  to  leave  school  than 
would  normally  be  the  case.  This  would,  of  course,  materially 
raise  the  general  mental  level  of  the  pupil  material.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  possible  that  by  placing  many  duller  pupils,  who  would 
otherwise  be  failed,  in  the  slow  sections  more  of  them  would  be 
held  in  school  and  that  by  allowing  the  brighter  pupils  to  progress 
more  rapidly  they  would  be  encouraged  to  leave  school  sooner 
than  would  otherwise  be  the  case.  Such  results  as  these  would 
lower  the  general  mental  level.  Or  perhaps  some  other  combina- 
tion of  the  four  possible  results  just  mentioned  took  place,  so  that 
more  pupils  of  all  degrees  of  ability  were  held  in  school,  or  more 
eliminated.  Or  again,  other  effects  than  those  mentioned  might 
have  resulted.  In  regard  to  the  new  entrants,  a  priori  reasoning 
would  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  they  would  have  no  effect  upon 
the  outcome  of  the  experiment,  since  its  operation  would  not  in 
any  way  cause  them  to  enter  or  not  to  enter  school.  However,  it 
was  thought  best  to  make  a  study  of  them  as  well  as  one  of  the 
eliminees. 

The  effect  of  the  pupils  entering  and  leaving  school  dur- 
ing the  experiment  upon  the  total  school    population.        It  was 

found  that  during  each  of  the  three  semesters   of  the  experiment 

[69] 


the  percent  of  pupils  eliminated  from  the  experimental  schools 
was  much  greater  than  that  from  the  control  schools,  the  averages 
being  about  12  and  7  percent,  respectively.  It  might  seem,  there- 
fore, that  the  experimental  plan  of  organization  resulted  in  increas- 
ing the  amount  of  elimination.  The  writer  does  not  believe,  how- 
ever, that  this  was  the  case.  If  it  had  been,  the  elimination  rate 
for  the  pupils  in  the  different  sectional  groups  probably  would  have 
varied  considerably.  A  study  of  this  phase  of  the  question  shows 
that  for  each  of  the  semesters  the  percents  of  all  the  pupils  belong- 
ing to  the  fast,  average  and  slow  sections  that  were  eliminated 
were  practically  the  same.  To  word  it  differently,  the  percent  of 
all  pupils  eliminated  that  had  been  in  the  fast  sections  was  almost 
exactly  the  same  as  the  percent  of  all  pupils  placed  therein.  A 
similar  condition  held  for  the  other  sections.  Furthermore,  the 
principals  of  the  experimental  schools  stated  that  the  elimination 
was  no  greater  than  was  usual. 

Table  XXV  shows  the  effects  of  the  entrance  and  the  elimina- 
tion of  pupils  upon  the  total  school  population.  It  is  to  be  read  as  fol- 
lows, taking  the  first  double  column  of  the  row  of  entries  following 
"Med.  Chron.  Age"  as  an  example:  the  elimination  of  pupils 
during  the  second  semester  of  1920-21  caused  a  decrease  of  one- 
tenth  of  a  year  more  in  the  median  chronological  age  of  the  pupils 
of  the  experimental  schools  than  in  that  of  the  control  schools. 
The  entrance  of  new  pupils  during  this  time  had  no  effect. 


TABLE  XXV.    THE  EFFECTS  OF  THE  ENTRANCE  AND  ELIMINATION 
OF  PUPILS  UPON  THE  TOTAL  PUPIL  POPULATION 


Second 
Semester 
of  1920-21 

Summer 
of  1921 

First 

Semester 

of  1921-22 

Second 
Semester 
of  1921-22 

Elim. 

NewE. 

Elim. 

NewE. 

Elim. 

NewE. 

Elim. 

NewE. 

Med.  Chron.  Age 

Percent  Accelerated 

Percent  Retarded 

Aver.  Retardation 

Aver.  Progress 

-.1 
-1. 

+1. 

-.03 

+.03 
-.01 
-1. 

-.2 
-1. 

+  1. 
-.04 

-.1 

-2. 

+1. 

-.01 

-1. 
-1. 

-.1 
-.02 

-.1 

+.02 
-.01 

-.2 
-1. 
-1. 

-.2 
-1. 
+  1. 

-.04 

+  L 

Prog.  Quotient 

Median  M.  A 

Median  I.  Q. 

Median  A.  A 

Median  A.  Q 

[70] 


In  making  use  of  the  data  in  this  table  it  must  be  borne  in 
mind  that  all  of  the  eliminated  pupils  were  not  included  in  the 
tabulations  from  which  the  data  were  derived.  In  a  rather  large 
number  of  cases  the  individual  record  cards  of  pupils  who  had  left 
school  were  not  returned  to  the  writer  along  with  the  cards  of  those 
still  in  school.  Practically  all  of  these  cases  were  in  the  control 
schools.  In  other  cases  the  pupils  were  absent  at  the  time  of  test- 
ing but  did  not  actually  withdraw  from  school  until  later,  not  re- 
turning to  be  tested  in  the  meantime,  so  that  another  possible 
source  of  discrepancy  was  introduced.  In  view  of  these  facts  it 
was  not  certain  that  the  effects  listed  in  the  table  were  all  of  the 
effects  or  were  the  true  effects  produced  upon  the  pupil  material 
by  the  pupils  who  left  during  the  experiment.  In  the  case  of  the 
new  entrants  there  were  no  such  opportunities  for  records  to  be  lost 
unless  the  pupils  concerned  not  only  entered  but  left  during  the 
same  semester,  in  which  case  they  would  not  have  been  included 
in  the  tabulation. 

The  effect  of  the  differences  between  the  new  entrants  and 
eliminees  and  the  total  pupil  population  in  so  far  as  they  relate 
to  progress  were  considered  in  Chapter  III.  On  the  whole  these 
effects  were  comparatively  small.  Those  having  to  do  with  achieve- 
ment were  not  used  in  Chapter  IV  or  elsewhere.  The  reason  for 
this  was  that  all  the  tabulations  in  that  chapter  were  made  for  the 
pupils  who  were  present  throughout  the  semester  and  hence  did 
not  need  to  be  included  for  the  pupils  entering  or  leaving  during 
the  given  semester.  They  are  merely  presented  here  as  a  matter 
of  interest. 


[71] 


APPENDIX  B 

THE  RELIABILITY  AND  CORRELATION  OF  THE  TESTS 
USED  IN  THIS  EXPERIMENT 

In  considering  the  results  of  such  an  experiment  as  the  one 
described  in  the  body  of  this  report  the  question  of  the  reliability 
of  the  tests  used  at  once  arises.  The  writer  will  not  go  into  the 
matter  in  a  detailed  way  but  will  merely  present  such  coefficients 
of  correlation  and  other  measures  of  the  reliability  of  the  tests  as 
were  obtained  and  comment  briefly  thereon.  No  attempt  was 
made  to  compute  all  the  possible  correlations  between  the  tests 
used. 

Constant  and  variable  errors.  Before  proceeding  to  give  the 
data  referred  to  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  a  brief  discussion  of 
the  errors  present  in  test  scores  seems  appropriate.  These  errors 
may  be  classified  as  constant  and  variable. 

Constant  errors  are  those  which  are  the  same  or  approximately 
so  for  the  group  being  tested.  If,  for  example,  the  person  giving 
the  test  allows  less  time  than  the  directions  call  for  a  constant 
error  is  introduced,  the  effect  of  which  is  to  lower  the  scores  of  all 
pupils  taking  the  test.  On  the  other  hand,  if  too  much  time  is 
allowed  the  scores  are  too  large.  Probably  the  most  frequent 
constant  errors  are  those  due  to  what  is  often  called  "practice 
effect."  If  a  duplicate  form  of  a  test  is  given  the  scores  made 
thereon  are  ordinarily  somewhat  higher  than  those  made  at  the 
first  trial.  Such  constant  errors  were,  of  course,  present  in  this 
experiment  but  as  they  were  equally  present  for  the  two  groups  of 
schools  it  was  not  necessary  to  make  any  allowance  for  them. 

Variable  errors  are  those  which  differ  for  the  different  indi- 
viduals taking  the  test.  They  are  due  to  a  number  of  causes.  On 
any  given  day  certain  pupils  are  below  par  physically  or  mentally 
and  therefore  are  likely  to  make  a  lower  score  than  they  would 
ordinarily.  Such  happenings  as  the  breaking  of  a  pencil  point,  the 
dropping  of  a  test  paper  upon  the  floor  or  some  occurrence  dis- 
tracting an  individual's  attention  cause  variable  errors.    All  of  these 

[72] 


mentioned  so  far  result  in  lower  scores.  On  the  other  hand,  it  may 
be  that  the  particular  form  of  a  test  used  contains  items  which 
happen  to  be  well  known  by  a  few  members  of  the  group  taking 
the  test.  Such  a  condition  results  in  an  increased  score.  Scores 
may  also  be  increased  if  a  pupil  turns  the  page  and  starts  before 
the  signal  is  given,  if  he  does  not  know  the  correct  answer  but  gets 
it  by  looking  at  someone  else's  paper,  and  by  various  other  causes. 
It  is  usually  impossible  to  determine  the  variable  errors  present 
in  the  scores  of  the  individual  pupils,  although  this  can  sometimes 
be  done  by  a  more  or  less  detailed  investigation.  The  effect  of 
these  errors  is  that  the  scores  of  many  of  the  pupils  are  slightly 
too  large  or  too  small  and  those  of  a  few  are  very  much  in  error. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  variable  errors  cause  very  little  or  no  change 
in  the  average.  In  the  long  run  they  are  as  often  positive  as  nega- 
tive and  therefore  offset  each  other  in  the  computation  of  averages. 
The  reliability  of  the  Pressey  Primer  and  the  Illinois  Gen- 
eral Intelligence  Scales.  As  the  two  scales  named  were  the  only 
ones  used  more  than  once  in  this  experiment,  they  are  the  only 
ones  for  which  the  reliability  can  be  calculated.  The  coefficients 
of  correlation  or  of  reliability,1  the  indices  of  reliability,2  the  prob- 
able errors  of  measurement,3  and  the  percents  these  probable  errors 
were  of  the  respective  medians  were  calculated.4  Throughout  the 
discussion  of  these  measures  of  reliability  it  should  be  remembered 
that  they  were  all  computed  from  the  use  of  tests  at  intervals  of 
about  six  months  and  one  year  and  therefore  should  not  be  ex- 
pected to  show  as  high  a  degree  of  reliability  as  if  the  time  intervals 
had  been  shorter.     In  most  studies  of  the  reliability  of  tests  the 


^he  coefficient  of  correlation  between  repetitions  or  duplicate  forms  of  the  same 
test  is  called  the  coefficient  of  reliability. 

2The  index  of  reliability  is  the  square  root  of  the  coefficient  of  reliability.  It 
measures  the  correlation  between  the  score  on  one  trial  of  a  test  and  the  true  score. 
This  true  score  is  the  average  of  the  scores  made  upon  an  infinite  number  of  trials  of 
the  test  after  these  have  been  corrected  for  any  constant  errors. 

3The  term  "probable  error  of  measurement"  bears  the  same  relation  to  the  index 
of  reliability  that  the  probable  error  of  estimate  bears  to  the  coefficient  of  reliability. 
It  is  a  measure  of  the  variable  error  by  which  a  pupil's  score  upon  one  trial  of  a  test 
deviates  from  his  true  score.  The  formula  is  .6745 (TV  1— r.  For  (j  the  average  of 
the  standard  deviations  obtained  from  the  scores  made  on  each  of  two  trials  is  used. 

4The  complete  tables  are  to  be  found  in  the  dissertation  by  the  same  title  and 
author. 

[73] 


interval  between  the  periods  at  which  the  tests  were  given  has  not 
exceeded  a  few  days. 

Table  XXVI,  Part  A,  shows  that  there  was  in  general  little 
difference  in  degree  of  reliability  between  the  Pressey  Primer  and 
the  Illinois  General  Intelligence  Scale,  that  of  the  former  being 
slightly  higher.  The  average  coefficient  of  reliability  was  in  each 
case  about  four-tenths  for  the  single  half-grade  groups  and  not  far 
from  seven-tenths  for  all  grades  combined.  The  average  indices 
of  reliability  were  somewhat  greater  than  six-tenths  and  eight- 
tenths,  respectively.  The  probable  error  of  measurement  averaged 
about  nine  points,  or  15  percent  of  the  median,  in  both  cases. 
In  the  case  of  the  Illinois  Scale  this  amounts  to  almost  one  year 
of  mental  age,  whereas  in  that  of  the  Pressey  it  is  somewhat  less. 

TABLE  XXVI.    DATA  CONCERNING  THE  INTELLIGENCE  TESTS  USED 

IN  THIS  PROJECT 


A.    Reliability 


Coefficient  of 
Reliability 


Index  of 
Reliability 


Pressey  (Nov.,  1920  and  May,  1921) 

Grade  Average II     .46±.02         .67=L.02 

Grades  Combined ||     .65  ±.01  .81±.01 

Illinois  (Form  1  in  Nov.,  1920  and  Form  2  in  May,  1921) 

Grade  Average II     .38±.03    I     .62±.03 

Grades  Combined ||     .69±.01    |     .83±.01 

(Form  2  in  May,  1921  and  Form  1  in  Dec,  1921) 

GradeAverage II     .46±.04|     .67±.02 

Grades  Combined ||     .73±.01    |     .85±.01 

(Form  1  in  Nov.,  1920  and  in  Dec.,  1921) 

GradeAverage II     .32±.04    I     .55±. 03 

Grades  Combined .62±.01         .79±.01 


Probable 
Error  of  Meas- 
urement 


P.E.   Meas. 


Medi 


.16 

.15 

.15 
.15 

.14 
.13 

.14 
.15 


B.     Correlations  Between  the  Different  Tests  Used. 


Grades 
Combined 


Pressey  and  Dearborn  (Used  at  Same  Time) . 


Illinois  and  National 
Pressey  and  Myers 
Kingsbury  and  Myers 
Pressey  and  Illinois 
Dearborn  and  Illinois 


(  "     one  semester  apart) . 


Pressey-Dearborn  and  Illinois  (Used  one  semester  apart) . 

Dearborn  and  Myers    (Used  one  year  apart) 

Pressey  and  Myers        (    "       "       "        "    ) 


78±.01 
81±.01 
39±.01 


52±.01 
46±.01 


*In  these  cases  the  correlations  from  only  one  grade  are  available. 


[74] 


In  other  words,  the  mental  ages  derived  from  a  single  application 
of  the  tests  would  be  within  that  distance  of  the  true  mental  ages 
in  only  about  50  percent  of  the  cases. 

Certain  data  as  to  the  reliability  of  these  two  scales  have  been 
given  by  their  authors.  The  administration  of  the  Pressey  scale 
to  365  first,  second  and  third  grade  pupils  gave  an  average  coeffi- 
cient of  reliability  of  .92  between  the  first  and  second  halves  of 
the  scale.5  With  two  other  groups  of  pupils  numbering  slightly 
over  100  each,  coefficients  of  .89  and  .92  were  obtained.6  The 
probable  error  of  measurement  was  found  to  be  between  two  and 
three  points  on  the  scale.  These  coefficients  are  naturally  much 
higher  and  the  probable  errors  much  less  than  those  obtained  in 
this  experiment  because  of  the  difference  in  the  intervals  between 
testing.  The  coefficients  of  reliability  for  Forms  1  and  2  of  the 
Illinois  scale  are  not  quite  as  high  as  those  between  the  two  halves 
of  the  Pressey  scale.  Results  based  upon  about  1000  children  gave 
an  average  coefficient  of  .83  for  grades  III  to  VIII  and  one  of 
.92  for  the  grades  combined.7  The  probable  error  of  measurement 
was  between  five  and  six  points  on  the  scale.  These  figures  also 
show  a  considerably  higher  degree  of  reliability  than  do  those  obtained 
by  testing  at  intervals  of  six  months  and  one  year.  Inasmuch  as  the 
scale  of  the  Illinois  is  finer  than  that  of  the  Pressey,  the  probable 
errors  are  not  far  from  the  same  when  converted  into  mental  ages. 

The  coefficients  of  reliability  that  are  given  for  two  or  three 
other  group  intelligence  tests  run  from  about  .75  up.8     They  tend 


6Pressey,  L.  W.  "A  Group  Scale  of  Intelligence  for  Use  in  the  First  Three  Grades." 
Journal  of  Educational  Psychology,  10,  297-308,  September,  1919. 

6Pressey,  L.  W.  "A  Group  Scale  of  Intelligence  for  Use  in  the  First  Three  Grades." 
Journal  of  Educational  Research,  1,  285-94,  April,  1920. 

7Monroe,  W.  S.  "The  Illinois  Examination."  University  of  Illinois  Bulletin, 
Vol.  19,  No.  9,  Bureau  of  Educational  Research  Bulletin  No.  6.  Urbana:  University 
of  Illinois,  1921.     p.  47-49. 

Monroe,  W.  S.  and  Buckingham,  B.  R.  "The  Illinois  Examination  I  and  II. 
Teacher's  Handbook."  Bloomington:  Public  School  Publishing  Company,  1920, 
p.  31. 

8Colvin,  S.  S.  "Educational  Tests  at  Brown  University."  School  and  Society, 
10,  27,  July  5, 1919. 

Colvin,  S.  S.  "Some  Recent  Results  Obtained  from  the  Otis  Group  Intelligence 
Scale."     Journal  of  Educational  Research,  3,  1-12,  January,  1921. 

Otis,  A.  S.      "An  Absolute  Point  Scale  for  the  Group  Measurement  of  Intel- 

[75] 


to  average  about  .80.  Therefore,  if  these  few  are  typical  of  similar 
tests  in  general,  it  would  seem  that  the  Pressey  and  Illinois  scales 
are  more  reliable  than  are  most  group  intelligence  tests.  From 
such  a  comparative  standpoint  coefficients  of  reliability  around  .90 
and  probable  errors  of  measurement  of  two  and  five  points  may 
be  said  to  be  rather  satisfactory.  The  differences  between  these 
figures  and  those  obtained  in  this  project  may  be  largely,  if  not 
entirely,  attributed  to  the  difference  in  the  time  elapsing  between 
the  giving  of  the  tests. 

The  correlations  between  the  different  group  intelligence 
tests  used  in  this  experiment.  Part  B  of  Table  XXVI  presents 
the  correlations  obtained  between  the  different  tests  used.  It  will 
be  seen  that  the  correlation  between  the  Pressey  scale  and  the 
Dearborn  tests  and  that  between  the  Illinois  scale  and  the  National 
tests  are  fairly  high.  An  average  correlation  of  about  .60  when 
pupils  are  taken  by  half-grade  groups  and  of  about  .80  for  all 
grades  combined  is  higher  than  is  usually  found  between  group 
intelligence  tests. 

The  correlations  between  the  results  of  the  tests  used  at  inter- 
vals of  six  months  and  one  year  are  considerably  lower.  This 
would,  of  course,  be  expected  as  they  take  account  not  only  of 
the  differences  between  the  tests  but  also  of  changes  in  the  true 
mental  abilities  of  the  pupils  during  the  period  elapsing  between 
the  giving  of  the  tests  and  of  differences  in  the  general  conditions 
of  testing  at  the  two  times.  On  the  whole,  these  correlations  do 
not  compare  unfavorably  with  similar  correlations  obtained  else- 
where. 

The  writer  collected  data  concerning  the  correlations  found 
between  different  intelligence  tests  in  some  fifty  cases.  In  practi- 
cally all  of  these  the  different  tests  were  given  within  a  compara- 
tivly  short  time  of  each  other,  usually  within  the  same  week.  The 
unweighted  average  of  the  coefficients  of  correlation  was  .62,  which 
is  only  slightly  higher  than  the  average  correlation  by  half-grade 
groups  given  in  Part  B  of  Table  XXVI  and  much  lower  than  that 

ligence."     Journal  of  Educational  Psychology,  9,  333-47,  and  237-61  May,  1918,  and 
June,  1918. 

Snarr,  O.  W.     "Reliability  of  General  Intelligence  Tests  in  Classifying  High 
School  Pupils."    Unpublished  Thesis,  University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  June,  1919. 

[76] 


obtained  for  the  grades  combined.  This  is  true  although  in  a 
number  of  cases  the  coefficients  were  based  upon  several  grades 
combined.  Only  about  a  dozen  of  the  fifty  are  as  high  or  higher 
than  those  of  .78  and  .81  which  were  obtained  in  this  experiment 
when  the  grades  were  combined.  In  only  one  case  was  there  a 
coefficient  found  higher  than  .90.  Thus  it  may  be  said  that  the 
correlation  between  the  Pressey  scale  and  the  Dearborn  tests  and 
that  between  the  Illinois  scale  and  the  National  tests  were  rather 
satisfactory  as  compared  with  similar  correlations  obtained  in  other 
experiments. 

Although  the  coefficients  given  in  Part  B  of  Table  XXVI  were 
obtained  from  testing  at  intervals  of  one  and  two  semesters,  yet 
some  of  them  compare  favorably  with  a  number  of  those  given 
in  the  accounts  of  other  experiments.  When  several  half-grade 
groups  were  combined  the  coefficients  averaged  about  .46. 

The  degree  of  reliability  of  single  test  scores  was  of  concern 
in  placing  the  individual  pupils,  but  in  measuring  the  results  of 
the  experiment  this  was  not  a  matter  of  importance.  The  average 
used  in  most  cases  was  the  median,  and  for  this  the  probable  error 
is  1.25  (approx.)  times  the  probable  error  of  the  distribution  divided 
by  the  square  root  of  the  number  of  cases.9  As  the  number  of 
pupils  included  in  this  experiment  was  so  large,  the  distribution 
would  have  had  to  be  very  scattering  and  the  probable  errors  very 
large  to  cause  the  medians  to  be  unreliable  to  any  considerable 
degree.  The  distribution  of  the  3615  November,  1920,  scores  upon 
the  Illinois  scale,  for  example,  had  a  probable  error  of  41  points, 
or  4.1  years  of  mental  age.  The  probable  error  of  the  median 
was  therefore  about  .85  point  or  one  month. 


9Yule,  G.  U.     "An  Introduction  to  the  Theory  of  Statistics,"  London:    Charles 
Griffin  and  Company,  1919,  p.  338. 

[77] 


APPENDIX  C 


THE  OMNIBUS  TEST 


As  was  mentioned  in  Chapter  IV,  a  test  called  the  Omnibus 
Test  was  devised  by  the  writer  to  measure  certain  achievements 
of  the  pupils  in  the  upper  grades  that  were  not  covered  by  the 
reading  and  arithmetic  tests  used.  This  test  was  of  the  true-false 
type.  It  included  seventy-five  statements  of  which  approximately 
half  were  correct  and  half  incorrect.  The  following  gives  the  first 
ten  statements  of  the  test: 

1.     Russia  produces  a  large  amount  of  wheat 

The  ancient  Greeks  were  famous  for  their  art. 

Charcoal  is  made  from  wood 

4.6  is  100  times  .46 

A  paragraph  should  be  indented 

Italy  raises  a  great  deal  of  flax 

The  Roman  Empire  was  not  as  powerful 

as  Greece 

Digestion  begins  in  the  mouth 

41/1000  =  .41 

A  compound  sentence  has   at  least  two  in- 
dependent clauses 

Every  fifth  statement  had  to  do  with  the  same  subject,  the  five 
subjects  included  being  geography,  history,  elementary  science, 
arithmetic  and  grammar.  The  fifteen  statements  dealing  with  each 
subject  were  divided  approximately  equally  between  the  six 
semesters  of  work  covered  and  were  in  all  cases  based  upon  material 
mentioned  in  the  outline  of  the  Chicago  course  of  study.  The  seven- 
ty-five statements  were  preceded  by  explicit  directions  and  prelimi- 
nary practise  statements.  The  pupils  were  instructed  to  place  a  plus 
mark  after  those  statements  that  were  correct  and  a  minus  sign 
after  those  that  were  incorrect.  A  time  limit  of  four  minutes  was 
placed  upon  the  test. 


9. 
10. 


[78] 


J 


u 


.w 

